# Fence permits... (I know...)



## Code Neophyte

Yet another example of why building departments should not be in the practice of issuing permits for fences:

If we do not, as a policy, take responsibility for verifying location of fences relative to property lines, and a property owner applies for a fence permit which might split (and render unusable) a shared driveway.  The proposed fence would otherwise comply with height regulations, etc.  Can a department refuse to issue a permit if there is no recorded easement for the driveway?  What if 'Neighbor B' is in the process of filing a civil suit against the applicant, "Neighbor A'?  Does that, in and of itself, provide a basis for denial, or would the court need to specifically issue an injunction against the issuance of the permit?

I know many of you have run into this same situation before!!  Input, please??


----------



## Mac

Amen, neo! I had a situation just like that not long ago. There were PO'd neighbors, finger pointing, and.....  well you get the idea.

Happily, we do not regulate fences. When I informed the parties of this fact, each party groaned & moaned because the beloved codes officer could not "help" them.

Yes the fence is still in place, right down the center of the formerly shared driveway.


----------



## Jobsaver

The purpose of issuing permits for fences:

The permitting process facilitates the education of the property owner. They become versed in the zoning law, including applicable laws about easements, concerning fences.

The permitting process helps to establish that when ahj rules are violated, they are violated with intent.

These are important functions.

As to the circumstances at hand, if there is no easement specifically for the driveway (ingress and egress), it is not the building department's job to stop the construction of a fence. But, it may fall on the building department to require new driveways if you have provision for requiring such. (We require a hard surface drive, minimum 8" width, etc.).


----------



## TimNY

A survey shows the easements of record.  If you are handed a survey for a land-locked parcel I assume you would not issue a permit.  If you are handed a survey whereon the surveyor has depicted an access/utility easement across the neighbor's property, I don't know that an easement allows you to do anything but access your property.

The detail would be in the wording of the easement.  I would deny the permit and place the burden on the applicant to prove otherwise.  There is a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo and certainly attorneys will be involved.  When it gets to that point, refer it to your municipalities attorney.

Neighbor disputes are civil matters, and not something the building department gets involved with.

You are correct in that it is not our job to locate these things.  That is what a surveyor is for.


----------



## Code Neophyte

Great responses - thank you all!!  I guess I'm taking an actual situation here and changing it to a hypothetical to focus in on one main issue.  My real question is:  If it is determined that there exists no easement, am I required to issue a permit, even though from a practical standpoint, I see it being a major issue?  I seem to recall a similar previous discussion (although I haven't been able to find it), and it came back to the non-discretionary aspect of permit issuance - that the issuance of a permit is a _ministerial act_, and so long as fees are paid, submitted documents are in conformance with applicable laws and codes, the department has no choice _but_ to issue the permit.


----------



## Mac

In my experience, local zoning makes no mention of municipal enforcement of private property agreements like restrictive covenants, easements, and rights of way.

From your description, it sounds to me like the permit should be approved, if the application has met the criteria for approval.

One of my stock responses - "The city is not involved in private boundary disputes, until they are settled."


----------



## rktect 1

We don't issue permits for fences in front yards.  Not allowed to have one there.


----------



## smeismer

It is surprising how many fences are underdesigned for wind load.  We make it clear that our review is just for that issue, and not for boundary location.


----------



## FredK

Only if the fence is over 6 ft tall is a permit needed.  Then planning needs to review first and we require engineering.  I think in the entire time there have been less than a dozen fences that were over the 6 ft height and those were on commercial projects.  Some of those fence design required an "L" design instead of a inverted "T" where neighbors split the line.

We don't get in the disputes as that's a civil matter and also don't use fences for measurement purposes.  Too many are this or that side of the line.

Good question.


----------



## Jobsaver

Code Neo:  I believe you have to issue the permit if the proposed fence is legal, (If it does not violate your ahj's ordinances).

Robert Ellenberg posted in the thread entltled, "http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?3085-How-many-inspections-should-be-required-on-SFD-s-Insulation-inspection" sarted up a good conversation on fence issues.

"Mule reminded me of a district I used to build in that required a survey before you were allowed to start anything above grade (similar to his batter board check though you could pour trench footings in advance). It is a great idea because if people start the construction and find they don't comply with a set back, they ask for a variance and they are often given as governing officials are reluctant to make someone go to great expense in order to comply unless they are way off. If there are walls, fences, driveways, etc. they should also be on a required final survey before giving a CO. I had a neighbor put up a wall and encroached on my property (they were finishing their house just as I was starting mine). Though the wall was part of the permitted improvements, they had been granted a CO and the municipality basically told me, "sorry, it's between you and your neighbor as we now can't really do anything". The muncipality had permitted, inspected and issued a CO and now I had an encroachment that prevented me from moving forward with my construction until I got it resolved. They literally forced me into a dispute with my neighbor by not requiring a final survey. Later on getting a final survey with all improvements shown did become a part of getting a CO."


----------



## Code Neophyte

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> Code Neo:  I believe you have to issue the permit if the proposed fence is legal, (If it does not violate your ahj's ordinances).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This confirms my thinking.  Thanks!
Click to expand...


----------



## brudgers

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> Yet another example of why building departments should not be in the practice of issuing permits for fences:  If we do not, as a policy, take responsibility for verifying location of fences relative to property lines, and a property owner applies for a fence permit which might split (and render unusable) a shared driveway.  The proposed fence would otherwise comply with height regulations, etc.  Can a department refuse to issue a permit if there is no recorded easement for the driveway?  What if 'Neighbor B' is in the process of filing a civil suit against the applicant, "Neighbor A'?  Does that, in and of itself, provide a basis for denial, or would the court need to specifically issue an injunction against the issuance of the permit?
> 
> I know many of you have run into this same situation before!!  Input, please??


Based on what you have presented, there is no basis for denial.

I had a similar situation during my tenure as a planner (we reviewed fences).

Incidentally, fences are placed in easements all the time (think utilities).

Unless there is specific language in your land use ordinances, there isn't any basis for prohibiting construction within an easement.

There is no building code basis what so ever.  See site plan requirements at 106.2.

Building in the easement simply means that the construction may be removed when someone exercises their easement rights.

Allowing construction in easements may be bad public policy, but prohibiting it based on the IBC is illegal.


----------



## rktect 1

We don't allow any built structure on an easement.  But fences can be placed there.


----------



## TimNY

So, the wording of the easement is only important inasmuch as it gives a property owner certain rights (ie to traverse for access to their properties), but not enough to know if the language of the easement permits the construction of fencing etc?

If you are going to issue a permit for one homeowner to build something on another person's property based on the language in an easement granting certain rights, shouldn't we know what the language is?

I would refer this to the municipal attorney and let him run with it.  Case law will be different in different states, so exactly what should be done may differ among inspectors.


----------



## mtlogcabin

R105.2 Work exempt from permit.

Permits shall not be required for the following. Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.

Building:

1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet (11.15 m2).

2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high.

R105.3.1 Action on application.

If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor.

Better have your I's dotted and T's crossed on this one if you decide not to issue it.


----------



## TimNY

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> R105.2 Work exempt from permit.Permits shall not be required for the following. Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.
> 
> Building:
> 
> 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet (11.15 m2).
> 
> 2. Fences not over 6 feet (1829 mm) high.
> 
> R105.3.1 Action on application.
> 
> If the application or the construction documents do not conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor.
> 
> Better have your I's dotted and T's crossed on this one if you decide not to issue it.


No such section in NY.

However, the section quoted states the work is exempt from a permit, thus the BO would not be entertaining any permit applications or easements in the first place and this thread would not exist.  Could you tell the applicant it is exempt and you don't want to know anything about it?

Something else is requiring a permit (thus overriding the "work exempt", and triggering "pertinent laws").  What are pertinent laws.. zoning?  penal?  vehicle and traffic?


----------



## Code Neophyte

Unfortunately, we chucked all of Section 105 in our local adoption, and have our own permit requirements (and exemptions).  Fences are not exempt at any height in any location (oh, how I wish they were!!!).  So in my mind, this comes down - essentially - to the question of whether or not I am legally obligated to issue the permit.


----------



## brudgers

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> We don't allow any built structure on an easement.  But fences can be placed there.


Based on what?


----------



## brudgers

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, we chucked all of Section 105 in our local adoption, and have our own permit requirements (and exemptions).  Fences are not exempt at any height in any location (oh, how I wish they were!!!).  So in my mind, this comes down - essentially - to the question of whether or not I am legally obligated to issue the permit.


I think you've phrased the question backwards.

"Are you legally obligated to deny the permit?" is the correct question.

Based on the fact that you have nothing to support denying it, the answer would be "no."


----------



## TimNY

If you are not legally obligated to exercise due diligence in the execution of your duties, then you certainly have a moral and ethical obligation to do so.

I believe a phone call to the municipal lawyer would qualify as such.  Why are we all avoiding the reasonable solution to the issue? If you think you can do it all yourself (and this is not directed at any particular individual in this thread), eventually you will find out that you are mistaken, and the question will be, "why didn't you ask somebody?"


----------



## Code Neophyte

You're absolutely correct, Tim.  As usual with these situations, I try not to give every single detail of the situation, so as to maintain some degree of anonymity for the parties involved.  So as I re-read my OP and subsequent posts, I see that it appears I'm trying to make the decision without the advice of counsel with only the limited knowledge set that I possess, which is not the case.

The thing that actually triggered my question is, we received a letter from 'Neighbor B's' attorney, asking us to not issue the permit, as there is a dispute that will ultimately be carried into court.  I don't really know that we've received our municipal attorney's take yet, so maybe I'm only trying to sharpen my instinct on these things.  _My opinion_ ....is that I have a duty to issue the permit (as there is no recorded easement - and I understand the point about fences even being allowed in easements), and the lawyer letter has absolutely no bearing.  Shouldn't the correct thing for 'Neighbor B's' attorney to do would be to file the suit and ask the judge to issue an injunction against the AHJ's issuance of the permit until the case is decided?


----------



## Mac

Tread lightly here, Neo - once the lawyers get involved, turning back is difficult.

 Has the applicant mentioned anything else about the situation?

Permit applications take a reasonable time to process - I might stall for a short time, until things maybe become more clear, just to make sure that my employer's assets are covered.


----------



## Jobsaver

In my ahj, fences are addressed in the Zoning Regulations, and it is a good thing I know that, because the city attorney's office is a black hole.


----------



## brudgers

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> You're absolutely correct, Tim.  As usual with these situations, I try not to give every single detail of the situation, so as to maintain some degree of anonymity for the parties involved.  So as I re-read my OP and subsequent posts, I see that it appears I'm trying to make the decision without the advice of counsel with only the limited knowledge set that I possess, which is not the case.The thing that actually triggered my question is, we received a letter from 'Neighbor B's' attorney, asking us to not issue the permit, as there is a dispute that will ultimately be carried into court.  I don't really know that we've received our municipal attorney's take yet, so maybe I'm only trying to sharpen my instinct on these things.  _My opinion_ ....is that I have a duty to issue the permit (as there is no recorded easement - and I understand the point about fences even being allowed in easements), and the lawyer letter has absolutely no bearing.  Shouldn't the correct thing for 'Neighbor B's' attorney to do would be to file the suit and ask the judge to issue an injunction against the AHJ's issuance of the permit until the case is decided?


Why haven't you issued the permit yet?

This is not fine wine, it won't get better with age.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> we received a letter from 'Neighbor B's' attorney, asking us to not issue the permit


Don't get in the middle. If you do not have a specific code/ordinance to deny the permit issue it and move on

 R102.2 Other laws.

The provisions of this code shall not be deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal law.

Let the attorney earn his fee.


----------



## FredK

Well since a laywer is involved the next step is talking to yours.  Based on he recommends is the route to follow.  As to now I don't see why you can not issue a permit.


----------



## Alias

Jobsaver said:
			
		

> In my ahj, fences are addressed in the Zoning Regulations, and it is a good thing I know that, because the city attorney's office is a black hole.


Same here.  I send 'problem fence' questions to my boss, the planning director/director of public works.  If all else fails, make them submit a site plan review to the planning department, if you have one.  Let them hash it out with Joe Public and John Doe.

Sue, in snowy CA


----------



## Alias

delete duplicate post


----------



## TimNY

"Encroachment/Construction Activity.  Grantor shall not undertake, authorize, permit or consent to any construction or excavation including, without limitation, digging, tunneling, or other forms of construction activity on or near the Easement which might in any fashion unearch, undermine, or damage the water lines or endanger the lateral or other support of the water lines without Grantee's prior written approval.  Grantor further agrees that no structure or obstruction including, without limitation fences and rockeries shall be erected over, upon or within the Easement..."

Seems to me you need the easement to make a determination.  Or maybe your municipal attorney will say it has no bearing on the permit process.  Gotta ask and just wait for a response.  The permit will be issued when the BO is satisfied the project conforms with "pertinent laws".


----------



## Code Neophyte

brudgers said:
			
		

> Why haven't you issued the permit yet?This is not fine wine, it won't get better with age.


Waiting for our attorney, since they played the attorney card, as FredK and several others have mentioned.  I'm just trying to reason through it to compare my proposed course of action with the one he recommends.


----------



## brudgers

TimNY said:
			
		

> "Encroachment/Construction Activity.  Grantor shall not undertake, authorize, permit or consent to any construction or excavation including, without limitation, digging, tunneling, or other forms of construction activity on or near the Easement which might in any fashion unearch, undermine, or damage the water lines or endanger the lateral or other support of the water lines without Grantee's prior written approval.  Grantor further agrees that no structure or obstruction including, without limitation fences and rockeries shall be erected over, upon or within the Easement..."Seems to me you need the easement to make a determination.  Or maybe your municipal attorney will say it has no bearing on the permit process.  Gotta ask and just wait for a response.  The permit will be issued when the BO is satisfied the project conforms with "pertinent laws".


The obligations of the Grantor are not a legitimate concern of the Building Department.


----------



## brudgers

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> Waiting for our attorney, since they played the attorney card, as FredK and several others have mentioned.  I'm just trying to reason through it to compare my proposed course of action with the one he recommends.


The applicant did not play the attorney card.

A party without standing regarding the issuance of a permit did.

There's no legitimate reason to delay.


----------



## TimNY

brudgers said:
			
		

> The obligations of the Grantor are not a legitimate concern of the Building Department.


Easy to say.  You base this on what?  In which state?  What case law?

Let's assume I state the obligations of the Grantor are a legitimate concern?  Can you rebuff without an unsubstantiated blanket statement?  In what state?  Based on what case law?

Code Neo has asked an attorney to advise him.  That is generally why municipalities hire attorneys.  Issuing a permit is not a race.  Due diligence is being performed.  His actions are reasonable.


----------



## Code Neophyte

Tim and Brudgers:

I actually agree with both of you - if that's possible??  My thought when the "lawyer letter" came through was, "So what?"  I should not perform my ministerial duty because someone who attended law school and passed a bar exam sent me a letter??

But, on the other hand, I'm not so pretentious as to think that there may be something that I'm missing when I do receive a "lawyer letter", so I forward it to my lawyer, and await my "marching orders".  But my automatic reflex is _not_ to disengage my own thought process, so I like to formulate my own thoughts, and even argue with our attorneys if I don't agree with their 'take' on the issue.  I might even secretly wish that the AHJ _would_ get challenged for something like this, to bring light to the fact that - just because a lawyer is involved and representing 'Party A' - it doesn't mean that 'Party B' does not have rights and is not _in_ the right.


----------



## brudgers

TimNY said:
			
		

> Easy to say.  You base this on what?  In which state?  What case law?Let's assume I state the obligations of the Grantor are a legitimate concern?  Can you rebuff without an unsubstantiated blanket statement?  In what state?  Based on what case law?
> 
> Code Neo has asked an attorney to advise him.  That is generally why municipalities hire attorneys.  Issuing a permit is not a race.  Due diligence is being performed.  His actions are reasonable.


Which part of the building code prohibits construction in an easement?

Which part of the building code empowers the Building Official to interpret case law and act upon those interpretations?

Point to a single state or local statute which empowers the building official to make permit decisions explicitly based upon case law rather than codes, statutes and regulations.


----------



## brudgers

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> Tim and Brudgers:I actually agree with both of you - if that's possible??  My thought when the "lawyer letter" came through was, "So what?"  I should not perform my ministerial duty because someone who attended law school and passed a bar exam sent me a letter??
> 
> But, on the other hand, I'm not so pretentious as to think that there may be something that I'm missing when I do receive a "lawyer letter", so I forward it to my lawyer, and await my "marching orders".  But my automatic reflex is _not_ to disengage my own thought process, so I like to formulate my own thoughts, and even argue with our attorneys if I don't agree with their 'take' on the issue.  I might even secretly wish that the AHJ _would_ get challenged for something like this, to bring light to the fact that - just because a lawyer is involved and representing 'Party A' - it doesn't mean that 'Party B' does not have rights and is not _in_ the right.


I understand that you want to keep your job and are covering your ***.

However, I am curious as to how frequently you take the opinions of an applicant's neighbors into account when issuing a permit.

Your liability goes up when you do something unusual.

Following standard operating procedure even when you find the applicant distasteful or the aesthetic merits of the proposed project non-existent is the best way to protect yourself.

Or at least that's what the city attorney drilled into me during another lifetime.


----------



## peach

The attorney card can get played the other way.. you can just as easily be slapped with a writ of mandamus ordering you to issue the permit.  I came from a place where a fence was allowed on the property line; if it was also an easement, it had to be a chain link or wooden fence that could be removed (by the utility company, generally) and a gate required (for the utility company or drainage crews).


----------



## TimNY

brudgers said:
			
		

> Which part of the building code prohibits construction in an easement?Which part of the building code empowers the Building Official to interpret case law and act upon those interpretations?
> 
> Point to a single state or local statute which empowers the building official to make permit decisions explicitly based upon case law rather than codes, statutes and regulations.


If only issuing permits was a question of knowing the building code.  New York does not even have the sections quoted in this thread.

Case law is more valuable then statutes and regulations.  It is how the Court interprets statutes and regulations.  I don't know that you interpret case law; I think the point is to read the decision and see how the Court interpreted it, thus "case law".

It is not our job to read case law.  It is our job, in the reasonable execution of our due diligence, to seek the council of those who are familiar with the law.  You may very well be correct in that it will not matter.  I am sure you are as certain of that as you are that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemmings' children.

The fact here is that we are saying "we don't know".  We are saying we need the advice of council to determine if there is a local or state statute that needs to be considered.

You are issuing commands as if you are an authority in every municipality in every state.

I can't speak for neo, but I would be following the same course of action.  Although I like my job, I am not worried about keeping it or covering anything.  I am interested in doing my job to the best of my abilities.  Sometimes I need a little help.


----------



## brudgers

TimNY said:
			
		

> I am sure you are as certain of that as you are that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemmings' children.


Go back and read what I wrote.

I didn't say anything about his fathering children.

I said Hemmings was his sex slave, literally.

And there is little debate among historians about that.


----------



## Code Neophyte

brudgers said:
			
		

> I understand that you want to keep your job and are covering your ***.However, I am curious as to how frequently you take the opinions of an applicant's neighbors into account when issuing a permit.


The answer is:  Never.  And if the neighbor's objections were the only thing I'd received, I wouldn't have thought twice about issuing the permit.  My only concern, as I tried to explain before, is that when I receive a 'lawyer letter', I am not so presumptuous as to think that I understand the law as well as the attorney (my gut feeling is that this is just a bluff and carries no real weight, but at the same time, I want another attorney - ours - to review the letter and the circumstances and give me some guidance).

"Cover my a$$?"  - That would be one way of putting it, yes.

"Keep your job" - I like to think that is always a secondary (or lower) concern, but at the same time, I would really hate to lose it over something as insignificant and non-building-code-related as a blankety-blank fence!

In short (and refer to my 'handle' on this board, as well, which suggests my relative 'newness' to this):  I make a very deliberate effort to not go about my job thinking I know everything, which I would hope you would appreciate, given the general theme of many of your posts regarding code officials (with which, I many times agree, by the way).  In this case, I do not intend to indefinitely delay the issuance of this permit, I simply want to verify, through expert opinion, in accordance with the following:

*104.4 Inspections.*

*The building official shall make all of the required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agency or by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the appointing authority. *

I consider receiving an urgently-worded 'lawyer letter' to be an 'unusual technical issue' - I can't recall a similar occurrence in the recent past.


----------



## Code Neophyte

brudgers said:
			
		

> I understand that you want to keep your job and are covering your ***.However, I am curious as to how frequently you take the opinions of an applicant's neighbors into account when issuing a permit.


The answer is:  Never.  And if the neighbor's objections were the only thing I'd received, I wouldn't have thought twice about issuing the permit.  My only concern, as I tried to explain before, is that when I receive a 'lawyer letter', I am not so presumptuous as to think that I understand the law as well as the attorney (my gut feeling is that this is just a bluff and carries no real weight, but at the same time, I want another attorney - ours - to review the letter and the circumstances and give me some guidance).

"Cover my a$$?"  - That would be one way of putting it, yes.

"Keep your job" - I like to think that is always a secondary (or lower) concern, but at the same time, I would really hate to lose it over something as insignificant and non-building-code-related as a blankety-blank fence!

In short (and refer to my 'handle' on this board, as well, which suggests my relative 'newness' to this):  I make a very deliberate effort to not go about my job thinking I know everything, which I would hope you would appreciate, given the general theme of many of your posts regarding code officials (with which, I many times agree, by the way).  In this case, I do not intend to indefinitely delay the issuance of this permit, I simply want to verify, through expert opinion, in accordance with the following:

*104.4 Inspections.*

*The building official shall make all of the required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agency or by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the appointing authority. *

I consider receiving an urgently-worded 'lawyer letter' to be an 'unusual technical issue' - I can't recall a similar occurrence in the recent past.


----------



## peach

Good for you Neo... as you grow in this business (and in your jurisdiction), you'll be able to figure out your limits..

Don't worry about "their" lawyers.. that's what the jurisdiction has a municipal lawyer for..

err on the side of caution (even if it's not popular)... if the city manager tells you to do something.. get it in writing from him/her..

You know what you're doing.. .don't second guess yourself too much!


----------



## Code Neophyte

Thank you, Peach - I very much appreciate your guidance.

In a way, I kind of hope I never lose the "second guess" reflex.  I see how one can get too comfortable in the position and assume they know many of the answers.  I hope that if I continue to do this for the next 30 years, I always stop to look up the answer, even if I _think_ I know.


----------



## TJacobs

We amended the admin section and regulate fences and issue permits.  We do not require an easement for a fence.  We permit fences in easements.  Good fences make good neighbors.

I agree with brudgers without all his added stuff...but I also agree that once the lawyer card is played, it's lawyer vs. lawyer.  Like Spy vs. Spy.


----------



## Code Neophyte

TJacobs said:
			
		

> ... it's lawyer vs. lawyer.  Like Spy vs. Spy.


Jake,

I like that!  It seems so appropriate to think of attorneys as non-human cartoon characters!!


----------



## brudgers

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> The answer is:  Never.  And if the neighbor's objections were the only thing I'd received, I wouldn't have thought twice about issuing the permit.  My only concern, as I tried to explain before, is that when I receive a 'lawyer letter', I am not so presumptuous as to think that I understand the law as well as the attorney (my gut feeling is that this is just a bluff and carries no real weight, but at the same time, I want another attorney - ours - to review the letter and the circumstances and give me some guidance).  "Cover my a$$?"  - That would be one way of putting it, yes.
> 
> "Keep your job" - I like to think that is always a secondary (or lower) concern, but at the same time, I would really hate to lose it over something as insignificant and non-building-code-related as a blankety-blank fence!
> 
> In short (and refer to my 'handle' on this board, as well, which suggests my relative 'newness' to this):  I make a very deliberate effort to not go about my job thinking I know everything, which I would hope you would appreciate, given the general theme of many of your posts regarding code officials (with which, I many times agree, by the way).  In this case, I do not intend to indefinitely delay the issuance of this permit, I simply want to verify, through expert opinion, in accordance with the following:
> 
> *104.4 Inspections.*
> 
> *The building official shall make all of the required inspections, or the building official shall have the authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals. Reports of such inspections shall be in writing and be certified by a responsible officer of such approved agency or by the responsible individual. The building official is authorized to engage such expert opinion as deemed necessary to report upon unusual technical issues that arise, subject to the approval of the appointing authority. *
> 
> I consider receiving an urgently-worded 'lawyer letter' to be an 'unusual technical issue' - I can't recall a similar occurrence in the recent past.


A lawyer letter is not a technical issue because it does not relate to a code issue [at least in so far as you have presented it, no building code issue has been raised].

Or to put it another way, would you hold up the permit if the neighbor had written you or come down to your office to complain?

Why are you giving the attorney special standing and deviating from standard procedure?

Suppose a person had their lawyer right a letter asking that no permits whatsoever be issued for 30 days.  Would you act similarly?


----------



## Code Neophyte

brudgers said:
			
		

> Why are you giving the attorney special standing and deviating from standard procedure?Suppose a person had their lawyer right a letter asking that no permits whatsoever be issued for 30 days.  Would you act similarly?


Well now I'm confused.  In many of your other posts, you chastise inspectors for operating beyond their qualifications - in the case of engineering.  I happen to often agree with you.  But shouldn't we (inspectors) also be mindful that we do not possess the qualifications or credentials to evaluate the merits or bases of a challenge from an attorney - that perhaps another (peer) attorney should engage in such a discussion?

Again, I _think_ I know the correct course of action - and it is exactly as you are suggesting.  But likewise, I could _think_ I've correctly performed structural calculations to confirm or refute a structural engineer's concerns.......

See what I mean?  I don't see much of a distinction between the two scenarios.


----------



## brudgers

Code Neophyte said:
			
		

> Well now I'm confused.  In many of your other posts, you chastise inspectors for operating beyond their qualifications - in the case of engineering.  I happen to often agree with you.  But shouldn't we (inspectors) also be mindful that we do not possess the qualifications or credentials to evaluate the merits or bases of a challenge from an attorney - that perhaps another (peer) attorney should engage in such a discussion?Again, I _think_ I know the correct course of action - and it is exactly as you are suggesting.  But likewise, I could _think_ I've correctly performed structural calculations to confirm or refute a structural engineer's concerns.......
> 
> See what I mean?  I don't see much of a distinction between the two scenarios.


One can legitimately justify actions taken in order to address concerns based  on engineering by citing building code sections.

There is no building code section which can legitimately justify your (in)actions based on your concerns about a letter from a third party.

Building officials are required to consider the adequacy of engineering in issuing permits.

They are not given the authority to deny permits based on the wishes of neighbors.

If one considers justice delayed is justice denied...By denying the permit, I suspect that you are opening yourself up to far more liability than is possible from issuing it.


----------

