Small Cabin Picture
 - Forums - Register/Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -     
 

Small Cabin Forum / Properties / Avoid building permit?
<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . >>
Author Message
MJW
Member
# Posted: 17 Oct 2012 16:09
Reply 


Quoting: Anonymous
it was intended to keep people safe but has become somthing that keeps people from being free.


I agree 100% and this is the reason we are only considering land that will allow us to build without going through the permit process.

There is far too much government in our day to day lives. Not at all like I think our founders intended.

Anonymous
# Posted: 26 Oct 2012 16:29
Reply 


wow....really!? loosen up....life is way too short!

freedom is dead
# Posted: 17 Nov 2012 12:36
Reply 


here's one for ya.

2ac prop, remote island, water access only, no svc, in BC

i built a tree supported deck to put a tent and bbq on. logs lashed to live trees with rope.

9 yrs go by , no probs. neighbors helped build it, i helped them build their decks. they visit and socialize on this deck, no complaints

95% of the cabins/decks in the area are ''íllegal'' we all like it that way. we pay big taxes for zero services.

i have a degree in mechanical engineering from a top3 uniiv.
i need a guy who can't calculate beam loading stresses(or probably his MPG) to tell me it's safe? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

but it gets better.... there are no codes for tree supported structures, so an inspector can't approve it without a STRUCTURAL eng approval (for a treefort!) Guys take civil/structural eng because the math and advanced physics in mech and elec are too difficult for them to handle. so i must pay an EXTRA 500+ for a guy who couldn't do real engineering to tell me deck is safe . did i mention HAHAHAHAHAH!

but here's the best part - different inspectors have seem the deck many times (visible from the water/ocean) and like everything else out here , ignored it. one day a racing type canoe goes by me on the shore, and i , feeling jovial, make a crack about the guy in the back not paddling as hard as the guys up front. (this is normal, the guy in the back steers and captains too) there was much laughter and some more wisecracks from the paddlers, BUT , unlucky for me, the guy in the back was the local B inspector. Talk about poking a hornets nest! he says get a permit. and sends me a letter stating so.

i call his boss , complain about the personal nature of the inspectors new found interest in my deck , and offer to take down a new addition to the deck which is currently unfinished and i get to keep the old deck (am awaiting a reply)

when i and my family are camping out on our remote island we love it to death. there are dangers however , and in order of importance i would rate the dangers as;

1many unmarked steep cliffs, and loose rocks on steep slopes
2every year a maple large enough to crush a semi, succumbs to the effect of gravity
3bears/cougars
4tics/lyme disease
5poorly equipped, inexperienced, flip flop wearing city slickers falling 100'+ trees with no safety gear
6 slippery docks/rocks form the boat to the land
7 burning ones self while cooking on the bbq or campfire
8 sharp knives
9 pissing off my wife
10 getting injured by a deck collapse from loading a deck with 2 tents and 3 people, a deck which can easily support 50Tons and could not be toppled by 4 large excavators working in tandem ( 4 live 24"dia fir trees)

doesn't it make you feel warm inside how the state cares so deeply for our well being!

----------------------------
i was quite stressed until i found afterward, on the website of the bldg dept a bulletin dealing with exactly existing cabins/decks in remote areas (never mentioned by the chief bldg insp in a 1 hour call, gee thanks!)

it lays out the requirements for existing non compliant structures
really old - none
40-20 yrs - streamlined
20 or less - current regs apply

But then goes on to say if an owner refuses that a note will be placed on title, which can be removed at ant time by getting permits. what?!?!? JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i keep my deck and get a free note on my file , the downside being , when i give/sell the prop to my child in 35 yrs, she gets told the deck is non compliant! considering she spent time there since age 2 i think she'll be ok with it!

MORAL of the story
CHECK you local bldg dept notices/bulletins etc carefully - there may be a loophole for the oppressive, nanny state, tax grabbing, freedom destroying bloodsucking leeches in your government!

toyota_mdt_tech
Member
# Posted: 17 Nov 2012 18:44
Reply 


Quoting: freedom is dead
MORAL of the story
CHECK you local bldg dept notices/bulletins etc carefully - there may be a loophole for the oppressive, nanny state, tax grabbing, freedom destroying bloodsucking leeches in your government!



Wow, great read. Loved every bit of it.

TomChum
Member
# Posted: 17 Nov 2012 22:04 - Edited by: TomChum
Reply 


Same here TmT & FiD! I wish I had written that! Enteraining and appropriate.....except for a little discrepancy that a "large excavator" doesn't even throttle up to deal with 24" trees. Fun read and I enjoyed the ending. That works for me too.

I must say I do appreciate freedom FROM other peoples trashy structures. If you "just look the other way" soon that doesn' help because you will see trash there too. My City neighborhood is the kind of place where renters will park a motorhome in the driveway and then sublet a room out of it. I'm happy but not proud that I have some freedom-sucking power to prevent that.

Out at my property however I have a little 1964 travel trailer that we use as a kids clubhouse and overflow sleeping room! Admitting to a double standard here......

MtnDon
Member
# Posted: 17 Nov 2012 23:29
Reply 


No, two different standards for different locations. There is no one size fits all answer... making rules that force everything into the same mold is where we run into problems.


We has a similar issue on our city suburb street. Different in the country.

TomChum
Member
# Posted: 18 Nov 2012 01:18 - Edited by: TomChum
Reply 


I hear ya Don but the little rural community I drive thru, 2 miles from my property, has similar troubles. It's just people who live along a road. 4x4s ripping up meadows, dirtbikes hillclimbing on the roadsides, and sometimes doing things worse than making "scars" along a pretty country road. Which I am totally against. But any trouble in their community ALWAYS has ties to the residents living in the substandard housing, so the neighbors out there battle with the slumlords too. And guess who never pitches in for the snowplow, or the grader either.

I think county enforced permit / compliance is used in this case to keep subsistence living at bay. Sometimes its just harassing citizens, other times keeping up appearances. I don't know the answer to the problems. I feel like people should be allowed to "subsistence live" but it's easy to forget (or ignore) the past. Imagine a Native American tribe with no sewer system. What would your neighborhood look like if 500 people pooped in the bushes every morning. And tomorrow you (and 500 other people) trudge off to find a NEW 'spot'. How far will you walk tomorrow? What if its raining hard? That wouldn't last very long, and you have to move the village. However, you could keep the village in one place MUCH longer if you can poop in the river (until every tree is burned for firewood!) This was REAL life just 150 years ago (and still TODAY in some parts of the world). That's one gov't interference We clearly benefit from.

Anyway when I drive past the "problem residences" I imagine those guys prowling around my cabin too. Sometimes I see their kids in my game cameras, I feel trouble is coming.....

silverwaterlady
Member
# Posted: 18 Nov 2012 01:52 - Edited by: silverwaterlady
Reply 




TomChum
Member
# Posted: 18 Nov 2012 02:49 - Edited by: TomChum
Reply 


Because hope springs eternal.

Actually it's not a bad place, it's very much average. I think I could have found worse. Scars along the road last for years, so I'm reminded every time I drive in, but it's not happening all the time. The 'neighbors' are vigilant because its a good place, worth keeping. They love it out there. A dead-end road could be better but its a thru road.

At least I have their pictures. I am thinking of talking to the parents because then they will at least know they have been photographed trespassing and are not "anonymous."

PA_Bound
Member
# Posted: 18 Nov 2012 09:31
Reply 


Quoting: TomChum
Because hope springs eternal.


Amen to that, brother!

If security for our cabins was a requirement to build, I don't think I would going out too far on a limb to say that most of us on this forum would not have been able to do it. Bad elements are everywhere and unattended cabins, which includes most at some time, are "easy pickin's".

As I've said before, I've taken a different path to security. While I do lock my cabin, I don't restrict access to the remainder of my land. It's open to hiking, hunting, and pretty much any other use with the caveat that "you leave it like you found it!". My philosophy, which I've told the neighbors and everyone else that passes through, is that I am not going to restrict access until someone gives me a reason to do it. I even ask complete strangers to keep an eye on the place, and let me know if anything happens (my phone number and e-mail address are taped-up in the window). The cabin has been in place over a year now, often unattended for weeks at a time, and the only things I have ever found were two empty, burned up, beer cans in my fire ring and a few 4-wheeler tracks in the meadow. I'm not naive enough to think that something will never happen but, again, "hope springs eternal".

Anonymous
# Posted: 18 Nov 2012 10:56
Reply 


So...

As a weird addition to the discussion. And perhaps an interesting scenario that may paint the extremes a little more accurately.

2 possible buy locations (either would work for me, but to be honest both are my actual desire.) the first is just under 1800 acres (that is not a typo), the second is 1300 acres. the properties are side by side, ocean front with creeks/rivers.

Either property is only accesible by boat. The nearest civilization is ... I'm uncertain exactly but from best I can tell about 2hrs by boat, up the coast and into the inlet that this property surrounds. There are valleys and mountains.

I would imagine the only visible sign of human habitation might be some sort of landing area.

Knowing that no person could ever "drive up the road" and that even should an inspector decide to venture (for some strange reason) up the coast for 2hrs venturing into this inlet and seeing a landing area. Knowing that there are no neighbours on any sort to make any complaint, would you really bother to get a permit?

I'm torn myself on the ethics of this. with such large land holdings most of the "i don't want to live next to a poorly built shed" arguments are out the window. This truely is the question of right (building something safe, secure, and environmentally conscious) vs legal (permits)

TomChum
Member
# Posted: 18 Nov 2012 11:12 - Edited by: TomChum
Reply 


If you are thinking of builing a "small cabin" then we're back on-topic!

If you go down the path of getting a permit for that I'm sure you will be the first. I don't know how a building department could afford such an expenditure. I predict they would rather NEVER heard your name. Unless you are actually building a BIG place, capable of generating lots of tax revenue.

I suppose the remoteness limits the size tho, and difficult to get heavy eqpt out there; probably would not be visible with GoogleEarth. Sounds like fun.

toyota_mdt_tech
Member
# Posted: 18 Nov 2012 11:17
Reply 


Quoting: Anonymous
I'm torn myself on the ethics of this. with such large land holdings most of the "i don't want to live next to a poorly built shed" arguments are out the window. This truely is the question of right (building something safe, secure, and environmentally conscious) vs legal (permits)


Well, in your case, if it was me, I'd build it with no permit. I'd build it up to code etc, takes pictures all along the way.

You can build it safe and no permit. The permit is just to let them know they can now tax you on the place more. If they dont know about it, then you should be fine. If they do find out, then they record it, then tax you.

Anonymous
# Posted: 19 Nov 2012 08:44
Reply 


The property is still in the pipe dream stage. A total of 3000 acres ocean front does run a tidy sum.

And yes a small cabin. Purchasing land in that quantity is to ensure it remains unspoiled. I wouldn't want anymore than 20x20 at absolute most but due to the difficulties in getting even a vehicle to the property it may have to be a great deal smaller. To be honest anything more than a tent might be difficult. But I'm sure hard work and time will cure all of that.

So back to the polar extreme, I believe that IF dealing with a large enough, and out of the way enough property that your security, safey, environmental responsibilities and satisfaction of life style are your own. However, if you are on a smaller property, around other people, if is best to make sure to follow the permits.

That being said I would like to share a small story. Small town life. I live about 300ft back from the ocean. Theres one street infront of me with houses. We are on a hill and I have a wonderful view over them of the water and the pier.
Recently a few neighbors have gotten into a dispute about trees being topped and what not. Its left a lot of hurt feelings and not so graceful behavior.
Tensions already running high a new young couple from the big city moved in a few doors down. Both lawyers. The decide to deal with some of the "view" problems by rebuilding their home. Despite city bylaws and permits and building inspectors and all the rest, they find a few tricky little loop holes, such as building the land up to the highest point on the property and then building their home from that point up.
When the dust settled these people had gotten the proper permits, but missed the spirit of being a good neighbor and being a part of the community. There home towers over others on our street. Its a stall as the homes the next street up and is completely blocking at least 4 peoples views and is most likely partially obstructing a great many more peoples views. Of course this doesn't solve any of the issues with the trees being topped and I'm sure in a few more years it wont matter how high their home is. All this could have been avoided with some common sense, discussion, and civility. Instead by the permits...

TomChum
Member
# Posted: 19 Nov 2012 11:13 - Edited by: TomChum
Reply 


I picture in my mind the photos from the mansion show rows of quaint seaside cottages, with the personality of years of modest living. A view that is irreplaceable. But photos of the whole neighborhood, it might as well be a Wal-Mart in the middle. Sad story.

This 3000ac... has it been logged? Canada puts a lot of wood on the market!

runewispevil
Member
# Posted: 7 Apr 2013 01:13
Reply 


wher do you live?

Canuck Mom
Member
# Posted: 18 Sep 2013 19:18
Reply 


Can I ask a question? International Building Code is what our province goes by. It says 214 sq feet (20 sq m) building area. Our building has a loft. One of the neighbours asked me about it. (she already has an illegally used "shed). I don't plan to cook, there will be no plumbing. Just a place to hang out in the day, swim and have some BBQ's. Building a large cottage on site this year. Apparently the loft is part of the building area. I really had no idea, the build had already started and then I did not know what to do. We said we would leave the loft out(and in the same breath I did throw in you're not to sleep/or cook in them either). I already have a fully serviced trailer up where the cottage is being built. This is so we can have our gear down by the water, a fridge and the bonfire area down by there. If I don't put in the loft and don't use it as a "cabin" I should be okay. It has been built absolutely to code otherwise.

Just
Member
# Posted: 18 Sep 2013 22:03
Reply 


Depends where you are in Canada . The only way to know is to ask your local building inspector . In Ont. in my municipality it's 10 SQ. M . lofts don't count if less than 4 ft. of head room , but you can't build anything until you have the building permit for the main cabin !!!

silverwaterlady
Member
# Posted: 18 Sep 2013 22:35 - Edited by: silverwaterlady
Reply 


In Ontario you can't have a shed until you have your cabin built.

Edit: this is in a unorganized township. We obeyed the law for the 25 years we camped on our property bringing all our camping gear over the border. It was a lot of work to do that every summer holiday....

northparknewbie
Member
# Posted: 20 Sep 2013 09:35
Reply 


As one of the previous posters my property is in Southpark Colorado. When I decided to build I considered not getting permits but after some research I decided that the possible consequences were to much and so I decided to go through the process. In the mean time I found a local company that builds the shed like cabins with cedar siding 6' porches and steel entrance doors. They supply engineered plans and when I was told that I would have to use 2x10's instead of the standard 2'x6's the company readily agreed. When I returned they then said that if I wanted to use the shell I would have to hire a general contractor to finish it raising the cost by probably 30,000 dollars. This was despite the fact that their own web sites states that the only stipulation with an owner built home is that it cannot be sold until the owner gets a certificate of occupancy. This is an example of why people look to skip the permit process, as with any government process you end up with power happy clerks abusing the power they have. It's funny that in our attempts to go off the grid we end up at the mercy of the very people we are trying to avoid. Had I to do it over again I would take my chances by building without permits.

toyota_mdt_tech
Member
# Posted: 20 Sep 2013 17:17
Reply 


Quoting: northparknewbie
It's funny that in our attempts to go off the grid we end up at the mercy of the very people we are trying to avoid. Had I to do it over again I would take my chances by building without permits.



I agree. The permit process is 2 fold, first and formost, so they know about it and can tax you on it.

Next, to make sure its safe. There is plenty of people who have no idea on how loaded walls are laid out and lay out lumber so an entire floor or roof is carried through a few bolts, nothing through the beams down to a foundation. A collapse waiting to happen. I persoanly know a guy who added on his home, he was clueless, but built on a back bedroom for the kids. The roof collapsed in the snow, fortunatly no one was in the room when it collapsed.

MamabearCali
Member
# Posted: 9 Oct 2013 23:42
Reply 


Quite honestly I think what a person does depends on the purpose of the property.

For our property the cabin is going to be our primary residence and it will be rather large in comparison prob between 800 and 1200 sq feet (we have four kids--can't get too small), so we will go ahead and get the permits and do everything by the book. It will cost us marginally more in the end prob a few K more, but when you have little ones the peace of mind would be worth it.



Now if it was an out lying property I would go with the largest I could build legally without permits and call it a shed (here in VA it is 200 feet). So if I were building a outlying cabin on a non primary residence cabin I would build a 14x14.

toyota_mdt_tech
Member
# Posted: 10 Oct 2013 21:26
Reply 


Quoting: Canuck Mom
If I don't put in the loft and don't use it as a "cabin" I should be okay. It has been built absolutely to code otherwise.



I think loft only counts if its 6 feet high ceiling or more. Under, its not considered living space?? This can vary by region etc.

Call it storage, no bunks. Many times, its just how you classify it. IMHO, if its not plumbed, wired, then it should not be considered a cabin, regardless of how it looks.

redbeard
Member
# Posted: 11 Oct 2013 01:00
Reply 


Build it less than around 14 ft Wide on peirs, worst case you can get a flat bed and move it...apply for the fiat permit for your "shed" and move it back with code Foundation..if u get caught..most places if you dont connect to gridd dont care about codes

toyota_mdt_tech
Member
# Posted: 11 Oct 2013 20:39
Reply 


With 3000 acres, play dumb if its discovered. Tell them some hunters must of bootlegged in a cabin on your land and that you will investigate it.

Flying Wrench
Member
# Posted: 30 Nov 2013 17:12
Reply 


A friend of mine told me something recently that I'm not too sure about, but that I certainly hope is true.

I was told that if you build a building that can be moved, for instance one built on skids, you can build larger without a permit. Not necessarily hooked up to the grid, but it can be built nonetheless.

What I do know is that in Minnesota you can build "accessory structures" without a permit if they are have less than 120 sq. ft. of floor space and only have one story. My current small cabin plan is based on this measurement. I would like to be able to build larger if possible.

MtnDon
Member
# Posted: 30 Nov 2013 21:47
Reply 


Quoting: Flying Wrench
"accessory structures"


Well, G/L but accessory structure usually means there has to be an existing main structure like a house that was built with permits. Often the wording on that will indicate they mean shed or playhouse and not a habitable building like a cabin. Maybe if it is movable as on skids no permit but often they only go by sq footage.

In most locations the rules of what does and what does not need a permit can vary from county to county, sometimes even city to town. The only way to be sure is to check with the local authority.

toyota_mdt_tech
Member
# Posted: 1 Dec 2013 15:35
Reply 


My area used to be 120 sq foot max and no permanent foundation = no permit. That has changed to 200 sq feet floor space, but still no permanent foundation. This is for buildings not intended to be lived in, storage only.

ShabinNo5
Member
# Posted: 2 Dec 2013 07:55
Reply 


Flying Wrench

Have you checked into a building permit? I know that the process differs from county to county, but it may not be as restrictive as most people assume.

Our building project is in Minnesota (Lake County). In preparation for the permit I had techincal drawings produced, including a review by a structural engineer. Armed with this information I called the county offices. During the conversation I was asked if we had a trailer on the property and if it was licensed? This seemed like an odd question, but since we did have a licensed trailer on the property I stated such. There was an appology from the county official, since the trailer was licensed, it could not be considered a permenent structure. This small difference ment that the cost for the building permit would be $100 (If I had not licensed the trailer the building permit would have only been $25). Then I found out that they did not need any of the drawings I had prepared. The only requirement was that I provide drawing of where the structure would be built on the lot (with dimensions) and that I have the area marked for the land use inspection. Once we received our permit I learned that there would not be any additional building inspections. However the tax accessor does visit every year.

I admit that our situation is not the norm. My point is that the permitting process may not be as restictive as you think. If so, you may have the option of building the size you really want.

ebach00
Member
# Posted: 21 Jan 2014 00:31
Reply 


OK, my question pertains to building a cabin under 100 sq ft, but using it as rental property for Airbnb (it would be classified as a hotel). I'm guessing that this would be very tough convincing officials to let you do this since you wouldn't be paying for your permit, but charging others to stay in the property. I'm located in California and know that they can be fairly strict on these kind of things.

Also, to make matters worse, I do not actually own the land. I was thinking of approaching several land owners, whom all ready rent out luxury Airstream trailers (that are stationary) and ask if they would be into the concept. I'm not sure how this would work out legally.

This is a big question..any advice is appreciated.

<< . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . >>
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Thumbnail Image Link  Large Image Link  URL Link           :) ;) :-( :confused: More smilies...

» Username  » Password 
Only registered users can post here. Please enter your login/password details before posting a message, or register here first.