Framing a wall: idiot edition

[shponglefan]

So I have this unfinished portion of my basement with one of the walls being framed/insulated.  However, there have been mold issues around the bottom of the wall (the prior owners shoved a ton of crap up against the wall trapping moisture).  I was hoping I could at least save the framed wall, but after pulling off the drywall I discover this:





Almost ever single vertical stud is too short for the wall!  Who the heck builds a wall like this??

Granted, it's not a load bearing wall or anything.  Although I had built a lumber rack on it, which now seems less of a good idea.  Oh well, new wall here I come...

[Howard_Casto]

Are there any signs of the basement skinning/cracking?  The only reason I could think of to have wedges like that is if at some point the stud wall separated in some way due to either the basement floor sinking, or the house above getting jacked up.  Either way rip that ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out.  Any moron can properly frame a wall so whoever did that is a special kind of moron. 

[shponglefan]

Nope, no sinking, at least not to this degree.  One of the studs (thus far) is actually the correct length.  The rest are all random lengths, including one about 8 inches  (!) too short.  The horizontal spacing is a bit random too.  They seemed to be going for 16" spacing, but some are closer to 15", one is 18".  As a result the insulation they packed in doesn't fit properly either.

I think this wall was just made by someone who had no idea what they were doing.

[SlammedNiss]

Any moron can properly frame a wall so whoever did that is a special kind of moron.

From the looks of it, they used whatever they had lying around to make it work, instead of buying a few more 2x4's. And come on, let's face it, 2x4's aren't exactly expensive.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah even with today's pricing they are what?  2.50 a stud?

[shponglefan]

Now that I've had a better look at it, it looks like they used reclaimed lumber from some other project.   There are all sorts of random holes and cuts in the various studs.  I'm still baffled why they didn't buy proper 2x4's and just cut them to fit though.  Surely it's more work to try to fit all these too-short pieces? 

And another gem from this wall:

[SlammedNiss]

Now that I've had a better look at it, it looks like they used reclaimed lumber from some other project.   There are all sorts of random holes and cuts in the various studs.  I'm still baffled why they didn't buy proper 2x4's and just cut them to fit though.  Surely it's more work to try to fit all these too-short pieces? 

Yup, called that one.

And, may I go ahead and add a... WTF?!?

[shponglefan]

Yes, SlammedNiss, yes you may.  I'll say one thing, though.  The construction of this wall has made it incredibly easy to tear down. 

And yet another marvel of construction brilliance, one of the studs had been sawed more than half-way through:

[crashwg]

Non load-bearing wall, against the foundation?  I don't see the problem.  Why not save a bit of scratch and use some used materials.  It might have looked a little nicer with a double bottom and/or top plate, but the construction seems perfectly useable given, again the non load-bearing wall against concrete...

[SlammedNiss]

Non load-bearing wall, against the foundation?  I don't see the problem.  Why not save a bit of scratch and use some used materials.  It might have looked a little nicer with a double bottom and/or top plate, but the construction seems perfectly useable given, again the non load-bearing wall against concrete...

Using used materials is perfectly fine, but c'mon, you can't tell me that you'd be perfectly happy if you tore down a wall only to find that behind it. There's no telling what other cost-cutting corners these people might have taken on the rest of the home.

BTW, the stud that was sawed 1/2 way through, I would of had no issues reusing it in the manner in what it was used, as it is a non load-bearing wall. However, all that other hacked-together garbage needs to go away .

[Vigo]

If I were to take my guess, I would say from the work that this is a quick flipped house you live in. As in the basement finishing was purposely added quickly to sell the house for a few more bucks.

I have seen this a few times. Any contractor worth their salt will not finish a basement if it doesn't pass a moisture test. I am guessing that the person doing the basement finishing was not an idiot, more just an A-hole that really didn't care. They probably were using scrap wood that was too short to begin with, and did a quick and dirty fill thinking that by the time anyone found out, it would not be his problem.

My advice is do a very thorough moisture test before putting drywall up again. Pick a number of possible problem areas and duct tape squares of clear sheet plastic, sealing all four sides with tape. Wait for a rainy patch of weather and check the squares up until a few days after that, they should all be perfectly dry. That way you will not be wasting drywall with you put wall up again.

[shponglefan]

Non load-bearing wall, against the foundation?  I don't see the problem.  Why not save a bit of scratch and use some used materials.  It might have looked a little nicer with a double bottom and/or top plate, but the construction seems perfectly useable given, again the non load-bearing wall against concrete...

Oh, I'm not saying it wasn't usable.  Minus the mold issue and the odd horizontal spacing of the studs, the wall has held up fine.  Rather it's the logic behind it.  It seems to me it would be so much more effort to build a wall this way as opposed to just cutting correct length studs.  Especially since they obviously nailed everything by hand.

[ChadTower]

Non load bearing... sure... but nontreated bottom plate is a big no no.  Big big one.  That's a big contributor to the mold. 

Now that I understand the inspection process (for non structural stuff) I get why the inspections can be important.  This is a clear example.  If that's a quick flip house, and the buyer had the sense to review permits on the newly finished basement, they could have either demanded remediation costs near closing or just walked away.

[TopJimmyCooks]

Not saying its good work at all, but they probably had the wood from something else salvaged, planned to use it on that wall, found it was too short, needed to finish that day, and decided to make do. 

The 45 degree cut 1/2 way through is a technique to straighten a warped stud.  It's rare these days but you see it in older work.  it's not a structural problem if used sparingly. 

Around here, any wood in contact with masonry/concrete has to be pressure treated- so that whole wall would need to be, not just the sole plate.

I am a GC and flip houses from time to time.  All my stuff is permitted, to code, etc. because I'm hanging my hat on quality.  Lord knows there's many total peckerwoods out there messing around, though. 

[shponglefan]

This wasn't a quick flipped house (at least not with respect to the prior owners).  Without going into all the details, I know the prior owners had this house for about 20-odd years, and I know the owners before them had this house for at least several years.

So I don't think the wall was built for show.  It's up against a 24 foot foundation wall, although the framed wall only spans about 16 feet.  I think it may have been put in for shelving (as there were old shelves on the wall), and possibly an attempt at insulation too.  But given all the insulation gaps due to the odd stud spacing and general lack of sealing, I don't think it was insulating very well.

Current plan is to put polystyrene right up against the wall (spanning the full 24 feet), seal it as best as possible, then frame in front of that.  My understanding is polystyrene makes a good vapour barrier if edges are properly sealed.  And I will be using pressure treated lumber for the base plate.

[ChadTower]

Use a concrete sealer paint before you put up the insulation.  It will help a good amount with surface moisture.  I used Drilok paint on mine.  I didn't have mold issues to begin with but figured why not if I have the chance in the process.  The rigid insulation will be either tongue and groove or overlapping edges.  Tongue and groove is better but I had a hard time finding it this year.  General caulk type adhesive will keep it on the wall for you.

Jimmy, in MA the code is anything in contact with the concrete needs to be treated lumber, but it also says the framing needs to be a couple inches away from the foundation.  That leads to only the base plate being in contact with concrete.

[Howard_Casto]

What he said.  Sealant is far more important.  Also I know you don't want to hear this, but the proper way to tackle a moisture problem is to do it on the outside... which means digging up all the ground around the basement and putting some sort of permanent vapor barrier.  I'm not sure what to recommend there... I'd check out This Old House... I'm sure they've done it at one point.

Remember that water has to go somewhere.  If you seal it on the outside it stays in your yard... which is perfectly acceptable, if you seal it on the inside it says in your wall, which will slowly but surely degrade the wall and lead to more leaks.  I would be careful about polystyrene as well... it is a good moisture barrier, but it's inherent insulation properties can lead to condensation...which is a whole different animal in terms of keeping things dry. 

[shponglefan]

I've been toying around with the idea of using a sealant, but keep reading conflicting opinions on using them on concrete.  Some think it's a good idea, some think it's a bad idea, and some think it really has no real effect.  FWIW, I haven't seen any obvious signs of seepage.  The only leak I've ever seen was through the hole where the gas line came in, but that was an actual hole, not seepage through the concrete itself.  I am going to do a test first using plastic, though (per Vigo's post).

Unfortunately, digging and sealing from the outside just isn't a realistic option right now.  Maybe in the future when I have the money for that.  I am working on the outside of the house to try to improve efforts to keep water away.  Grading is pretty good, although could maybe be improved a bit in the front yard.  I do need to extend the downspouts though, as the ones I have are pretty short (~2-3 feet).

[Dawgz Rule]

I've been toying around with the idea of using a sealant, but keep reading conflicting opinions on using them on concrete. 

I've noticed the same in regards to vapor barriers on basement walls as well.   Some say that a vapor barrier is an absolute must on studded walls in the basement.  Others say different because it will simply trap the moisture within the void between the studded wall and the concrete.

[ChadTower]

Is there a chance that mold is really from a flood and not seepage?

[Howard_Casto]

I've been toying around with the idea of using a sealant, but keep reading conflicting opinions on using them on concrete. 

I've noticed the same in regards to vapor barriers on basement walls as well.   Some say that a vapor barrier is an absolute must on studded walls in the basement.  Others say different because it will simply trap the moisture within the void between the studded wall and the concrete.

And both are 100% correct, which is the annoying thing.  If your outdoor barrier is pretty good then sealant is a good idea... it keeps moisture from within the room and/or very minor leaks via things like that hole he mentioned from collecting in the concrete (which takes a while to dry out).  But if you are getting a lot of moisture from outside leeching in, it will trap this moisture and lead to mold. 

I would look into what Chad said.  Treat your mold and clean it all out.  Then wait for a big storm and/or get outside with the garden hose and see if you get any significant moisture leakage. 

[shponglefan]

Is there a chance that mold is really from a flood and not seepage?

I don't think so.  I know there used to be a crap ton of cardboard boxes shoved against this wall, so I have a feeling it was simply a case of trapped moisture/condensation not being able to dry out.  And especially during this time of year, when the climate is pretty damp.

[Howard_Casto]

Oh one more suggestion.  Get a de-humidifier.  Even a small portable one will do wonders in a humid basement. 

[Dawgz Rule]

Oh one more suggestion.  Get a de-humidifier.  Even a small portable one will do wonders in a humid basement.

Great suggestion.  A dehumidfier makes a big, big, difference.

[ChadTower]

I wouldn't even call that a suggestion.  That's more like a Commandment.


Thou shalt have a dehumidifier in thy basement.

[Howard_Casto]

Fair enough... but I have seen dang fool idgits out there without one, so I thought I'd mention it. 

[shponglefan]

Way ahead of you guys, have one running as we speak. 

[SavannahLion]

Depending on where you live.  You can add a skirt around the house.

I've only ever seen it in the mountains,  you strip back about two feet of topsoil about six feet away from the house and lay down a thick layer of plastic and attach as appropriate to the house. Seal any edges.  We added a layer of rock to help with drainage. No drain pipe that close to the surface because of freezing in winter.

Note we sealed the concrete on the outside before backfilling and we do have a drain pipe below the frost line. The skirt was an added measure. It works perfectly if you don't pierce or remove the skirt. Until the skirt was inadvertantly removed recently, I never witnessed water from the drain pipe or seepage in the foundation.

In the valleys I think a drain pipe and gravel is sufficient to move water away from the foundation since there is no freeze cycle. The only other time I saw a similar system using a skirt was on Holmes on Homes where the skirt is much smaller and the drain pipe sits on top, rather than below in our case. I don't think he had to contend with a deep frost line though. YMMV.

You can use either as a temporary solution until you get enough cash to dig down and do the job proper.

[shponglefan]

So now I discovered this new wrinkle in my plan: building permits!

I originally wasn't expecting one to be required.  I know my city requires them for finishing a basement (floor to ceiling).  But in this case I'm not actually finishing anything, just insulting a single foundation wall.

So I went to the city office to check.  I was told that anything to do with insulation (i.e. replacing existing or adding new) technically requires a building permit.  Framing by itself does not, as long as I'm not making new living spaces.  And I was also told I can probably get away with replacing like insulation w/ like insulation without needing a permit.  Which is good, because I'd already had that done in one of the upstairs bedrooms.

They told me it's basically to make sure any new insulation meets or exceeds what was there prior.  Which is almost comical given how poor this basement is insulated (the finished portion has 1 inch styrofoam in between furring strips; no sealing, holes in it, etc).

I talked to a few people and one guy said while I "technically" need a permit to replace insulation, if I'm covering it back up with drywall nobody would ever know.  It was funny to hear that coming from a city official.

So now I'm wondering if it's worth going through the hassle of bothering to get a permit.  I know insurance can be an issue, and the electrical will be seperately permitted.  For just insulation and drywall though?  I'm really not seeing the value in what I'm getting for money here...  and if it's a matter of later selling, I can always rip it all out anyway.

[Howard_Casto]

Lol... as a guy that lives in WV I kind of laugh at permits.  Around there at least, only three actually count in a home, electrical, gas, and depending upon the situation, water. 

Here's the thing about permits (caution, opinion incoming).  Unless it's a new structure, there is absolutely no way they can prove that you've done any work to your house, unless one of the utility companies is involved.  It's not like an insurance company keeps a book of every re-modeling done to every house in the united states... they only know work has been done if YOU tell them it has.  This is why the city official gave you that advice imho... sometimes even though there is technically a law in the books, it isn't really enforced. 

[Dawgz Rule]

Agree with Howard 100%.....especially for insulation and drywall.   

[TopJimmyCooks]

As a GC I pull permits on everything - except my own house, sometimes.   As long as you don't add square footage or change life safety/egress, there's no way it can be an issue really.  It sounds like you're improving things - and you have tacit acceptance by the building department- so I'd go bareback on this one if I were you. 

[Howard_Casto]

I'm a big fan of safety, so if you need to get things inspected for safety's sake I'm all for it, but imho permits are a scam created partially to make a new industry and partially to pass the blame of an accident away from the utility company. 

Example:  Let's say the house next door was one of the first houses to get electricity... I mean the thing was hooked up to a Edison generator at one point.  You on the other hand, have a relatively new house.  The wiring hasn't been touched on either house since it was installed and both are on the grid.  The old house would have the exact same approval and accident insurance coverage as your house.  Why?  Because the Edison house was hooked up to the ac grid long before inspections were required, and it's never been unhooked.  So long as the electric company doesn't get involved it will always be covered, even with it's 100 year old wiring.  On the other hand, your house that was built in the 80's and you just recently had to disconnect the power when you swapped out the siding on the house.  Now even though you haven't touched the wiring at all, the electric company will require you to get the wiring inspected before they'll hook it up again, it's quite possible they will FAIL you as well, because the code in the 80's isn't the same as the code today.  So by doing absolutely nothing, you could fail inspection.  The house with the 100 year old wiring... it's still chugging along. 

This isn't a crazy over the top example either.... I know a person who was in a situation like this.

My point is, if you think the point of inspections is to ensure you have a safe home think again, the point usually is to give a GC trying to supplement his income some extra cash and to make sure the electric company doesn't get sued. 

[Dawgz Rule]

Well said.  I was going to add that permits can come in handy if one has no clue as to what they are actually doing. 

My wife and I were building a koi pond a few years back.  The pond itself would be the size of a normal in ground pool.  Went to the building department....no permit required.  No fence required either.  I explained in greater detail all of the work (pumps, electrical, etc.).  Again, no permit required because it is considered a "water feature".    Asked the guy what if I now call it a swimming pool?  Need a permit, inspections, fence, etc.  Too funny. 

[Howard_Casto]

Yup.... we've got a trailer on our property here.  It isn't "tied down" for insurance reasons.  What that means is, a thin gauge steel wire hasn't been attached to the frame and pounded into the ground, that would serve absolutely no real purpose in a natural disaster compared to the permenant cinder block piers I have it on.  The difference?  Because I don't have it "tied down" it is a temporary structure and is considered a mobile home, even though it's a 12 x 79 trailer.  Once I tie it down, it's a permanent structure and falls under normal home owners insurance. 

Ridiculous. 

[SavannahLion]

In rare form I agree with Howard. Permits are a pisser. In my town we have itemized lists for what requires permits.  Ceiling fans require permits,  light fixtures do not.  Stores won't even sell you a water heater without charging the permit fees (gas or electric makes no difference) but gas stoves have no such requirement.

I can see the original intent of permits but like the recycling fees on lumber, electronics, and paint the intent is out the door and it's now an unwarranted tax.

[SavannahLion]

Yup.... we've got a trailer on our property here.  It isn't "tied down" for insurance reasons.  What that means is, a thin gauge steel wire hasn't been attached to the frame and pounded into the ground, that would serve absolutely no real purpose in a natural disaster compared to the permenant cinder block piers I have it on.  The difference?  Because I don't have it "tied down" it is a temporary structure and is considered a mobile home, even though it's a 12 x 79 trailer.  Once I tie it down, it's a permanent structure and falls under normal home owners insurance. 

Ridiculous.

Ive heard the same thing happens in Oregon.  I have friends who use a tractor to pump water which is acceptable but install a well pump and they have to pay higher taxes. I'm told that that state ties property taxes to foundations, so living in trailers is common to keep property taxes lower.

[Vigo]

I agree with the above. Permit stuff is a money racket, and I wont get one unless my work is visible from the outside.

I have a 110 year house that I plan on selling soon. It simply needs to be re-shingled, but because of permit code, it would cost me $20,000 to 25,000 to have it done. I have a pretty small house, something like 15 X 80, but code states that the house must have specific rafter width and plywood decking to be to current code. That means if I get a roofer to come in and reshingle, he will be forced to redo the entire top of my house with all new material. I have had about 7 quotes and they all told me the same thing: My roof is sturdier than most modern roofs, but different from modern code standards and therefore would need to be completely replaced if I want new shingles up there.

When I sell the place, I will just drop 8k off the price as a counter offer to "cover the cost" of a new roof.

[knave]

In my town if you ask at all, "you need a permit", But you replace something like for like they'll never know. A toilet is a good example. Just like Howard I'm all for a permit if its a safety issue but sometimes it doesn't make any sense.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact that "city planners" or "councilmen" write up this stuff and they don't have a clue what they are talking about in regards to the history of home building.  I think the best example I can give is the fact that modern structural codes are based upon modern lumber and don't make exceptions for old lumber. 

My grandma's house is made out of 100+ old lumber.  First of it uses REAL sized lumber.  A 2x4 is actually 2 inches by 4 inches ect....  Secondly it comes from old growth trees.... back in the day they didn't "farm" the land by planting trees and cutting them down every 30 years or so, you'd cut down a 200+ year old tree and slice it up, because they still had those back then.  I've broken three blades on a saws-all trying to get through a single stud in her house... that's how dense the wood is. 

Yet I have to go by building codes intended for homes built on particle board floors and 1.5 x 3.5 new pine studs that are so flimsy I can drive a screw through them with a manual screw driver. 

It's one of those deals where they should really just make it really hard to get an inspectors license, ensuring only knowledgeable people get in and each house should be inspected on a case by case basis instead of going down a list of pointless technicalities.  Of course that has it's own problems, so I'm not even sure if a reasonable solution exists.

[SavannahLion]

A lot of lobbyists have a hand in that. Take a look at how Duct Tape got into building code. The days of writing a law for safety (pressure relief valve on a hot water heater is a good example) are long gone.  Now it's about screwing the home owner while using the cheapest crappiest materials possible.

Wood construction and materials is so ---smurfy--- that a number of home owners are turning to steel frame construction to get that quality back.

[shponglefan]

I guess I know the general consensus here on building permits.   And nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this is a little insane. 

What really gets me is I could (based on the questions I asked), frame out a stud wall and drywall it.  No permit needed.  But add insulation and suddenly you need a permit.  Weird.

Also, having torn out the whole wall, here's a couple more of the "studs" from it.  I still can't believe someone went through the trouble of using 5 (!) pieces of 2x4 to make a vertical stud. 

[Howard_Casto]

That's not a wall... that's modern art!  Hang it in the living room.   

[MonMotha]

I have a 110 year house that I plan on selling soon. It simply needs to be re-shingled, but because of permit code, it would cost me $20,000 to 25,000 to have it done. I have a pretty small house, something like 15 X 80, but code states that the house must have specific rafter width and plywood decking to be to current code. That means if I get a roofer to come in and reshingle, he will be forced to redo the entire top of my house with all new material. I have had about 7 quotes and they all told me the same thing: My roof is sturdier than most modern roofs, but different from modern code standards and therefore would need to be completely replaced if I want new shingles up there.

Have you checked with your relevant city/county officials?  Many municipalities have provisions for field certification of deviations like this.  The requirements are often quite onerous as they're also/mostly intended to cover new, experimental building techniques, but if indeed your roof is "sturdier than most modern roofs", you may be able to get such a variance to the code granted to re-shingle as is.  It'll probably cost you way more in time than dollars to push through.

[SlammedNiss]

I have a 110 year house that I plan on selling soon. It simply needs to be re-shingled, but because of permit code, it would cost me $20,000 to 25,000 to have it done. I have a pretty small house, something like 15 X 80, but code states that the house must have specific rafter width and plywood decking to be to current code. That means if I get a roofer to come in and reshingle, he will be forced to redo the entire top of my house with all new material. I have had about 7 quotes and they all told me the same thing: My roof is sturdier than most modern roofs, but different from modern code standards and therefore would need to be completely replaced if I want new shingles up there.

When I sell the place, I will just drop 8k off the price as a counter offer to "cover the cost" of a new roof.

Sounds familiar to something somebody local is dealing with. They are wanting to replace the deteriorated siding on their home, but because the home is in a "historical district" they told him he had to stop what he was doing. They want to mandate what is put back onto the home, and will cost him far more than he originally anticipated.

http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/A1--historic-housing-blog

[TopJimmyCooks]

Excuse me for getting all X2 on this but some of you have the wrong idea about building permits.

I'm a big fan of safety, so if you need to get things inspected for safety's sake I'm all for it, but imho permits are a scam created partially to make a new industry and partially to pass the blame of an accident away from the utility company. 

Not true.  I'm a student of building codes and they are primarily oriented towards safety, specifically Avoiding structural collapse, can't get out of the building during a fire, or you get electrocuted.  they don't protect quality except as a by product. 

Example:  . . . .  The house with the 100 year old wiring... it's still chugging along. 
This isn't a crazy over the top example either.... I know a person who was in a situation like this.

This is an example of (I think) one of the great things about the USA.  Once you're built out you're done with most regulatory, until you make an alteration.  the same applies with zoning which is why you still see eyesores in areas that have had zoning ordinances for many years.  Now, if you have 2 fires in your old house with knob and tube bare wiring still in use, they might condemn it for the safety of the neighbors.  but in almost all cases, the government tries to stay out of your house when possible. 

My point is, if you think the point of inspections is to ensure you have a safe home think again, the point usually is to give a GC trying to supplement his income some extra cash and to make sure the electric company doesn't get sued.

Although the contracting lobby has some input on building codes, its almost always pushing to make them as weak and liberal as possible, not stringent to sell more building materials.  the general view is the cheaper it is to build the more we will be hired to do it.  the point of codes is safety, with a newer secondary goal of making buildings energy efficient.  My brother just ran into a radon abatement issue.  Radon abatement contractors didn't exist before someone figured out that radon causes health issues.  the issue came up, legislation happened, contractors moved to provide work that meets the code.  in that order.  homebuilders aren't lurking around trying to find ways to charge people more.  they fight against that, generally. 


Gonna keep addressing Howard here although others have spewed wrongness in this thread as well:

Yeah I think a lot of the problem lies in the fact that "city planners" or "councilmen" write up this stuff and they don't have a clue what they are talking about in regards to the history of home building. 

In almost all cases wrong.  West Virginia uses IBC 2009 building code, just like most us states currently.  it is a code developed by an international committee of experts and practitioners.  Not your friendly local city councilman.  Some states make minor exceptions or additions for their local conditions.  City planners may have a more direct influence on Zoning, which is a different thing than building codes, but I'm well qualified to hold forth on Zoning as well if anyone wants to have a go. 

I think the best example I can give is the fact that modern structural codes are based upon modern lumber and don't make exceptions for old lumber. 

My grandma's house is made out of 100+ old lumber.  First of it uses REAL sized lumber.  A 2x4 is actually 2 inches by 4 inches ect....  Secondly it comes from old growth trees....
 . . .
 and 1.5 x 3.5 new pine studs that are so flimsy I can drive a screw through them with a manual screw driver. 

This is dead wrong.  IBC certainly allows for and covers literally archaic techniques and materials for wood framing.  It covers heavy timber framing, skip sheathing, wood shingle roofs and a bunch of other stuff you don't really see done much anymore unless someone is specifically going for historical accuracy. 

Modern lumber is smaller than old full dimension lumber, but it's better graded/more quality control and you are allowed to use full dimension if you have it.  That's not to say you can't buy Low Grade lumber today, but the code sets the grade minimum (#2, stud, etc.).  Those markings stamped on the studs mean something.

It's one of those deals where they should really just make it really hard to get an inspectors license, ensuring only knowledgeable people get in and each house should be inspected on a case by case basis instead of going down a list of pointless technicalities.  Of course that has it's own problems, so I'm not even sure if a reasonable solution exists.

In my experience this is already true.  inspectors have to be trained and licenced under IBC code.  You can also always get stuff excepted or specially reviewed.  usually you go in, tell them what you're trying to do, and they'll either tell you they'll review your plan and inspect the work, or they'll tell you to get an engineer/architect to seal the design and then maybe a 3rd party inspector, so they are covered.  They are respectful of their limits and may pass the buck, but they are also civil SERVANTs and their desire is not to keep people from doing stuff.  just from doing dangerous stuff.

I still feel like the OP's basement wall has nothing to do with life safety and he can frame it and hang it without a permit reasonably, if not legally.  I could respond to a lot more but I've got to go devise ways to gyp my clients more efficiently and quickly by exploiting current municipal regulatory loopholes!?!

[Vigo]

Have you checked with your relevant city/county officials?  Many municipalities have provisions for field certification of deviations like this.  The requirements are often quite onerous as they're also/mostly intended to cover new, experimental building techniques, but if indeed your roof is "sturdier than most modern roofs", you may be able to get such a variance to the code granted to re-shingle as is.  It'll probably cost you way more in time than dollars to push through.

Well, in the end, I figured it was not worth fighting the city. From what i gathered, it would require showing up to a neighborhood hearing and making my case. I have no patience for my city. In the few short years I have been in the city, they have:

Accidentally condemned my house and tried to force me to vacate. Never found out what the mix-up was, but I had to submit way too much documentation and get it notarized for them. I also had lost my homestead status and had to reapply.

They accidentally classified my house as a rental property. I was upgrading my mailbox, and left the old one behind a locked porch for a couple weeks. Somehow a city inspector saw the old mailbox and assumed I was dividing out my mail from a subrenter's mail and changed my property classification to an illegal rental. They tried to hit me with a ton of fines, and revoked my homestead yet again. That was a 3 month fight that the city wanted to enter my home to make sure there was no second family living there. Since there was a guest bedroom, they didn't beliecve me after inspection and prompted them to do random surveillance of my home.

The city also made me get rid of my trailer. I had a trailer folded up in a corner patio area, but the city declared it was a yard parked vehicle. I lost that fight.

Then the city tried to tow my car for not having a parking permit. In reality I was the first car on the street to put on the new parking permit, but the parking enforcement officer didn't realize it and thought I was the one with an outdated permit. I had stopped him from towing, but out of spite, the guy ticketed me and I had to take off of work to show up to a hearing.

Then there is the time the city chopped down the outwald half of my trees. The city realized they could get a federal grant for "restoring" a historical home. One of the city council members, who owns a small trucking company, bought out a city block for truck parking. He found out that one of the houses he bought was a classified as historical, so he had the city buy the home without the land from him. The city decided to ship the house to an open park across the street from me. One day I came home to a couple 30 foot tall half-trees outside my house, and had to find out the story the paper the day after they drove a crumbling house down my street. Flash forward two years and that house is still crumbling and condemned, my trees haven't recovered, and I don't have that park plot across from my house anymore.

[Vigo]

@topJimmyCooks

Sorry, but I really still have to agree with Howard.

As far as building code goes, I think almost all older or larger cities have their own code developed in addition to standard building codes. Where I am from, they call it an "appendix to the state adopted building code". There are chapters and chapters of city-specific codes. In my city, there are 23 chapters. They have further chapters to control "Historical" districts and houses.

In my experience the city inspector's main goal has always been to get into my business. (See my post above). I have only met one really stellar inspector in my city, and that guy was truly great at his job. Too bad for every one of him, my city has 10 cronies of the city. Most the inspectors in my city are intentionally trying to get my neighborhood, as the city has been working on ways to plow down our neighborhood to expand the hospital without an uproar. The inspector who got me on my trailer let that detail slip. There is a reason why my neighborhood had the highest foreclosure rate in the entire country a few years back. Bunch of cronies. 

Oh, and as far as "old lumber" goes. Modern lumber may have quality controls and grades to their lumber, but it is undeniable how sturdy mature wood lumber is in comparison to modern young tree lumber. I prize the 100+ year old lumber in my house, and any time I have the opportunity to take it down, I do. Simply because I want it for myself. My house is made 10 times more durable than a modern home because of that wood.

[TopJimmyCooks]

Vigo:  no question you've been done in on your house.  Mostly on zoning and historical preservation isht which is, yes, very local and very annoying but not really building code related.  By the way, what city are you in?

I arfing hate hysterical preservation these days. I like nice old neighborhoods very much but the way they go about keeping them that way is draconian, the petty little napoleons, and they certainly help their friends and developers and smooth the way for their own projects.  (preservation boards are stocked with contractors, major landowners, developers and architects/engineers + rarely maybe a historian).  Good idea but too much means for corruption.  I believe you have the right to complain if they overlaid the district on you while you lived there but you should be grandfathered.  If you moved into it, you might have known better.   Any time I buy any property I check the rules for fire districts, historical, zoning, etc.  because as a GC, changing the use and altering the building, I'm going to get all the rules applied to me in spades.  The process of checking all this stuff before buying is called due diligence.  Sounds like this isn't your issue and you're trying to comply with the rules and still getting jerked around.

I've dealt with building and zoning in a lot of cities and towns throughout the southeastern us.  Very few times/places are they in your business badly like you've had to deal with.  most often, they are overworked, underpaid and do their minimum job requirements but don't look for trouble.  Some places they do look for trouble.  Two examples are Pinehurst NC and Alexandria VA.  these places have a lot of their own rulebooks. 

Any city is much worse in this regard than a rural area eg Howard's. 

I'm going to start a separate thread in EE on modern lumber v/s full dimension old growth.  Maybe. 

[ChadTower]

Well said.  I was going to add that permits can come in handy if one has no clue as to what they are actually doing. 

This is pretty much why I went whole hog on permits for my gameroom.  I wanted to do all of the work myself and it's all for the first time.  That and I'm adding "living square footage" to the house so it needs to be building inspector approved to count.

[Howard_Casto]

Jimmy, I don't want to start a big argument with you, but everything you argued with just isn't correct. 

As Vigo said, yeah WV uses the IBC 2009... and then there's a little unnoticeable comment that any local laws or existing state specific laws take president and thus 90% of what's in there is overridden.  Keep in mind, I don't even live in the city, I live out in the sticks, but because the nearest city is Charleston, all the inspectors go by Charleston code.   That's how it goes in WV... most of the inspectors are based in a town or city, most people live in a rural area... whatever code they decide to inflict on you largely depends upon who you call.  This probably isn't even legal, but it doesn't matter... it's simpler to just deal with their particular code.

There was a house next door with the same vintage lumber... he was getting it inspected for something else and the inspector complained that his studs were too far apart.  The owner explained that it didn't matter because it was thicker timber but the inspector didn't care... he wanted that 16 on center as opposed to the 18 or 20 that it was.  It was a big fight to keep from having to rip the stuff out, so nope.... no real consideration for old construction materials. 

I've met 10 inspectors over the years... they are all out of work or aging or down on their luck GCs.  Most of them blindly followed the code.  Others would cuss and swarm about how dumb the code was, but they'd follow it anyway.  So when even the supposed expert tells you the code is b.s. and yet he fails you, the whole inspection is naturally b.s.  I'm not even in construction in an official capacity but I could go get my license in general construction inspection right now.... you just have to pass a rather simple test.  Oh and give the state some money (naturally).   

You are right, it is easier in a rural area... only because we don't get anything inspected.  If you are going to go the legal route though it's just as bad, if not worse because things just aren't followed closely and you never know which inspector you are going to get. 

[TopJimmyCooks]

That sucks that Charleston has so many exceptions to IBC, and it's true of course that local jurisdictions make additions and edits as I mentioned.  Most places in NC/SC/VA don't do that because it exposes the city to liability.  IE something is charleston codeworthy but not ibc and mold grows in the walls, they sue the ---- out of the city inspection department.  Taxpayers pay the legal bills.  it happens all the time.  The great thing about widely accepted code formats like ibc, cabo, etc. is that the training is better and the interpretations come into line. 

. . . that his studs were too far apart.  The owner explained that it didn't matter because it was thicker timber but the inspector didn't care... he wanted that 16 on center as opposed to the 18 or 20 that it was.  It was a big fight to keep from having to rip the stuff out, so nope.... no real consideration for old construction materials. 

See - that's well covered under IBC code- there are a million charts of stud size/spacing etc. and 16" isn't the only option, and to a certain extent you can interpolate. 

If you get into this kind of fight - just get an engineer (PE) letter, sealed, saying it's ok.  That absolves the inspectors - they want to CYA even when/especially when its a little off the beaten path.  I've done this probably 10 times over the years.  cost ranged from free to maybe $400 was the most I ever spent. 

. . . but I could go get my license in general construction inspection right now.... you just have to pass a rather simple test.  Oh and give the state some money (naturally).   

I suspect the test is like a civil service exam - to get into the job.  Once you got on board, you'd have to go to class to get certification for what you're inspecting - building, plumbing, whatever.  That's my guess. I have not done any work in WV.  If it's exactly what you're saying then I agree, that's ridiculous.  Around here you can't get inspections sometimes because they're all in training all the time.