# Cathedral roof and a cantilevered deck.



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

Hey there, I am looking for a little guidance on a problem I am having at the current time. I'm selling my home as it's to small. It was simply converter from a single family in the 70's to a 2 family by the previous owners for their daughter to have an apartment up stairs they installed a door at the top of the stairs and a useless kitchen, along with a very small enclosed set of stairs out side making it impossible to bring furniture or anything big into the 2nd floor. So seeing the opportunity to go back to a single family for cheap money, I bought the house and immediatly removed the existing stairs to the send floor. Added a 10'x12' deck that was lagged on parallel to the houses existing floor joists. From there the outer tripled (3) 2x10's proceeded out from the house 10' supported at 8' by 6x6 posts leaving a less than 2' cantilever. Seeing the need for a roof covering the deck, I installed 6x6 posts on 4 corners on the deck, and built a cathedral ceiling structure that extended 2' beyond the end of the deck, supported by a (3)2x12 ridge beam. I read alot about loads and being in New England, I over built the outer structure of the frame going on what Icalculated for the areas prescribed snow load of 50psf. The building inspector doesn't know anything about anything and I really need this signed off on but wants a licensed contractor to tell him it's to code (you read that right). HELP!


----------



## ICE (Aug 18, 2018)

Scott E. said:


> The building inspector doesn't know anything about anything and I really need this signed off



I take it that you did the work without a permit and now you are talking shlt about the inspector.


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

ICE said:


> I take it that you did the work without a permit and now you are talking shlt about the inspector.


No sir, permitted job. Just took a while to complete, and hadn't called for inspection.


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

"I don't know if this is to code. You're going to have to get a contractor to come and ok this" That is what he said.... Not talking ****.


----------



## ICE (Aug 18, 2018)

There's got to be more to this story.  You have to use an l in the word shlt or it comes out ****.  Perhaps he misspoke and meant to say engineer instead of contractor.  Around here what you did requires an engineered plan.

Your profile indicates that you are in Alabama but you stated that the building is in New England.  Could be the New Englanders don't take to Alabamians.

The inspector gets the benefit of the doubt with me.  I've seen enough owner builder projects to know that some just should not have happened.  Post some pictures.


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

I'm not here to swear. But honest to God this is the exact story no other things to add, from joist hangers to hurricane ties to over spec beams. I may not do it for a living, I am not fast, but I know how to build strong, the inspector literally cannot tell my why it's not to code or if it is.... It's really dumbfounding!


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

Recent transplant to Alabama (3 weeks), the house is sold. But the buyer is using FHA financing and they keep moving the goal posts. Going to try for pictures.


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)




----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

That's really all I have being 1300 miles away now.


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

He reiterated licensed building contractor. I understand there is always reason. To suspect, but here the inspector is... Seemingly admitting to being ignorant of his responsibility.


----------



## ICE (Aug 18, 2018)

Not much to say from looking at the picture other than the posts that support the roof structure appear to be bolted to a rim joist.  That seems odd.  Is there an engineered plan....or any plan.....and did you follow that plan?


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

I tripled the whole perimeter of the deck and the outer posts are sitting on on the cantilever I guess you could say the middle post for the roof is sitting on a rim but the rim is bracketed and the joists for the deck are running left to right. So it's supporting nothing other than the center post for the roof. Oh and the posts are all a dado attached the deck structure. So the posts are sitting on decks framing .


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

Just the plans submitted to the inspector.


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2018)

Scott E. said:


> No sir, permitted job. Just took a while to complete, and hadn't called for inspection.




So were any plans required for review??

If so was it built as shown on the plans???


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2018)

Your selling your house.

Why is the building inspector involved??

Just recently finished the project??

Or mortgage company or someone else requireing an inspection??

Or 

Other reason??


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 18, 2018)

Just took a while to do, I'm not a professional, I just wanted a deck off my bedroom, and as time, money and energy came available I did the project. Over like 3 years, I just forgot to call when I completed it. Now the lender is asking to close the permit and get it inspected and the building inspector doesn't seem qualified for his job based on his own reasoning, not my opinion, because he can't explain it is or isn't built to code.... "I don't know"


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2018)

Scott E. said:


> Just took a while to do, I'm not a professional, I just wanted a deck off my bedroom, and as time, money and energy came available I did the project. Over like 3 years, I just forgot to call when I completed it. Now the lender is asking to close the permit and get it inspected and the building inspector doesn't seem qualified for his job based on his own reasoning, not my opinion, because he can't explain it is or isn't built to code.... "I don't know"




Did you built it to the plans submitted???

Do they show the dimensional lumber you used and how the entire structure is supported?


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2018)

Is this the only inspector in town???

Or does he have a boss?


----------



## Scott E. (Aug 19, 2018)

He's the top.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 19, 2018)

While the inspector may be challenged Scott E you are in over your head.   Hire an engineer.  The engineer should be able to both advise you on what needs doing and satisfy the inspectors concerns. I expect that changes will be necessary.

My caution flag goes up when I hear somebody say "I know how to build strong".

From the picture the load path is not clear and while it may be possible that it can work it is likely that as built it is neither compliant nor safe.

The inspector may have said contractor but what you need is an engineer.  While contractors have a general familiarity with the codes they typically do not have the training to interpret the provisions your are concerned with.  In addition state licensing laws would prevent a contractor from practicing engineering or architecture.

If an inspector or building official cannot provide a code provisions then the chances are that he is making things up.

I find it interesting that we give inspectors with little to no training the authority to interpret and enforce a complex building code.  I appreciate it that no one individual can be an expert on all of the issues in the building code but this situation where the building official has no training in architecture or engineering appears to be all to common.  

In California we have recognized that in the building department the individual responsible for enforcing most issues must be a licensed architect or engineer.  While this is a first step we still have many individuals who were appointed to their positions before the law went into effect.


----------



## cda (Aug 19, 2018)

Scott E. said:


> He's the top.




Did you built it to the plans submitted???

Do they show the dimensional lumber you used and how the entire structure is supported?


----------



## ICE (Aug 19, 2018)

Mark K said:


> I find it interesting that we give inspectors with little to no training the authority to interpret and enforce a complex building code.



Well then Mark, you and the general public haven't a clue as to how bad it really is.  This is especially true with the electrical code.  Trust me on this, some jurisdictions will give the job to damned near anyone.


----------



## jwilly3879 (Aug 19, 2018)

I would have some issues with this design. I would need to see some calculations before I would approve it.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 20, 2018)

This would require an engineer in my jurisdiction.


----------



## TheCommish (Aug 20, 2018)

hire an engineer, point loads of cathedral ceiling being transferred  through  carriage bolts  to the rim joist of a cantilevered,  span not good


----------



## classicT (Aug 20, 2018)

Scott E. said:


>



The configuration shown in the image above is not compliant with the IRC nor the AWC-NDS.

Loads cannot transfer through carriage bolts, continuous load paths not provided, what appears to be over-spanned members (cantilevered rafters), insufficient lateral support, etc. 

Is there a header over the attic vents to carry the ridge beam, how does that transfer to header (if there even is one) over the doors? Must be a continuous load path to footing with all elements properly sized.

While the design _*may*_ by sufficient, it does not comply with the prescriptive code and therefore requires design by a licensed engineer. Your inspector is right to question your design.

Also, does your State have requirements for work performed by a licensed contractor when selling a property? Locally, you must retain ownership for a minimum of (3) years if you self-perform as a non-licensed contractor.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 20, 2018)

Also the code would not allow a cantilever to support a starway


----------



## JBI (Aug 20, 2018)

Hire an engineer.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 20, 2018)

(I could be way off but) even in NJ this shouldn't cost more than $5 or 600 bucks to have an engineer/architect come out, draw it up as built or suggest a fix or two, and give it to you so you can give it to the inspector.  ~$600 vs. not selling the house sounds like an easy choice to me, even if you don't really have it.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 20, 2018)

Mark K said:


> I find it interesting that we give inspectors with little to no training the authority to interpret and enforce a complex building code.  I appreciate it that no one individual can be an expert on all of the issues in the building code but this situation where the building official has no training in architecture or engineering appears to be all to common.
> 
> In California we have recognized that in the building department the individual responsible for enforcing most issues must be a licensed architect or engineer.  While this is a first step we still have many individuals who were appointed to their positions before the law went into effect.




<Deleted>

Never mind.  I don't have the energy..


----------



## Mark K (Aug 20, 2018)

Carriage bolts can transfer loads.  The problem is that given the likely loads and what is implied by the picture it is very unlikely that they would be sufficient in this situation.

JCraver say what you really think.  I will agree that there are no easy solutions but we need to confront the problem.


----------



## steveray (Aug 21, 2018)

What the inspector might have been trying to state was that it would not meet the prescriptive IRC (which I would agree with)....and may require engineering to reconcile. I have no tolerance for a building department that approves plans and then fails a structure built to those plans, but it seems we are not going to get that information....I agree with the issue of point loading the rim, it is not a beam no matter how many plies it has, with no bearing...


----------



## JCraver (Aug 21, 2018)

Mark K said:


> I find it interesting that we give inspectors with little to no training the authority to interpret and enforce a complex building code.  I appreciate it that no one individual can be an expert on all of the issues in the building code but this situation where the building official has no training in architecture or engineering appears to be all to common.
> 
> In California we have recognized that in the building department the individual responsible for enforcing most issues must be a licensed architect or engineer.  While this is a first step we still have many individuals who were appointed to their positions before the law went into effect.





Mark K said:


> JCraver say what you really think.  I will agree that there are no easy solutions but we need to confront the problem.




Nope, I'm gonna' sit this one out.  If someone wants to explain why that first quote is such nonsense, it ought to be in its own thread.


----------

