[AT] Talking about shops/sheds + (OT) Building Code Changes

Larry Goss rlgoss at insightbb.com
Sun Mar 6 15:06:48 PST 2011


Carl, that's a big "if" in your email.  The assumption is that the building originally met the codes, but it didn't.  The codes weren't
 being enforced in the county when the church was built, and were only being marginally followed in urban areas. The founding fathers cut every corner you can think of when it was constructed, We're now two or three generations removed from them.  There isn't a single system in the building that meets code.  Plans for the building are a single-line drawing.  There are no supporting contract documents.  It isn't that those documents somehow disappeared -- they never existed.  Every Gothic cathedral in Europe has better documentation in the form of paintings, templates, and a "builder's rule" or measuring rod left in their attic or vestry than this little country church that was built in the 1950's.  Our best hopes lay in a lightning strike or a tornado.  As a matter of fact, I suspect that part of the electrical system problems is not just poor original installation, but because a lightning strike has already occurred and we haven't found the precise evidence.

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Gogol <cgogol at twcny.rr.com>
Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011 15:19
Subject: Re: [AT] Talking about shops/sheds + (OT) Building Code Changes
To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>

> I'm from NY, if anyplace is going to require regulation we are 
> it.  I have 
> not heard of any legislation to the effect of require these 
> dramatic changes 
> to retroactively meet code so I am curious if such legislation 
> can be named 
> or referenced?
> Otherwise;
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/captrade.asp
> 
> says that it is not true.  I am aware of certain code 
> changes being required 
> if they strongly relate to safety; but for the most part if a 
> building was 
> built to code as it existed at the time it still meets 
> code.  In the city 
> Syracuse if your storm drain connects to the saniary sewer you 
> have to 
> disconnect upon sale.  This is just logical.
> 
> Carl
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Larry Goss
> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 2:38 PM
> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> Subject: Re: [AT] Talking about shops/sheds + (OT) Building Code 
> Changes
> LOL!  That's right.  There is nothing in the US 
> constitution supporting the 
> actions.  I can't remember the exact wording, but one of 
> the articles says 
> something to the effect of ----those things not covered by the 
> constitution 
> are reserved by the states. --- Many of those provisions were 
> changed/outlawed/modified back in the 60's.  Most of the 
> day-to-day 
> guidelines we use are state laws and codes, not federal.  
> It's state rules 
> and regulations that do licensing, and where we hope and work 
> for 
> reciprocity.  So when the federal rules and regulations 
> "rear their ugly 
> head" it's more than a little bit disturbing.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011 9:19
> Subject: Re: [AT] Talking about shops/sheds + (OT) Building Code 
> ChangesTo: Antique tractor email discussion group 
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> 
> > It's not right Larry.  There is nothing, NOTHING in the US
> > Constitution that
> > gives the government the authority to control such things.
> > That goes for
> > the state constitution of this state but we have laid around and
> > gone along
> > and let them have the authority by not standing up for our rights.
> >
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Larry Goss
> > Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 9:35 AM
> > To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> > Subject: Re: [AT] Talking about shops/sheds + (OT) Building Code
> > Changes
> > The legislation/regulation is already there, Charlie.  It's
> > in the form of
> > requirements for establishing a subdivision.  If you have
> > an existing
> > property and want to divide it, you are generating a new
> > subdivision and all
> > the portions of it (including the improvements) have to meet the
> > current
> > code.  There's the rub.  There's no problem making the
> > vacant land or new
> > construction meet the code, but there is no "grandfathering" in
> > accepting
> > the existing improvements.  So our small church is
> > struggling as the owners
> > of property that is well worth over a million dollars, and we
> > can't
> > sub-divide it without spending beau coup bucks to upgrade the
> > present
> > improvements.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: charlie hill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
> > Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011 6:29
> > Subject: Re: [AT] Talking about shops/sheds + (OT) Building Code
> > ChangesTo: Antique tractor email discussion group
> > <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> >
> > > Guys the brilliant politicians that run this country now are
> > > trying to push
> > > through a bill that will require everyone to bring their house
> > > up to current
> > > code before they can sell it.
> > > No they can't escrow the funds for the new buyer to fix
> > > it.  It would have
> > > to be fixed to be sold.   That includes plumbing,
> > > electrical, HVAC, windows,
> > > insulation, green roofing materials (that aren't even current
> > > law yet),
> > > energy efficient appliances, air infiltration (loss and gain)
> > > and probably
> > > some other stuff I've forgotten.  By my estimate (as a
> > > certified appraiser)
> > > most houses over 30 years old wouldn't be worth
> > > fixing.   As far as I know
> > > that proposal has been beat back for now but it's out there and
> > > some folks
> > > want it bad enough that I'm sure they will try to hide it in the
> > > law
> > > somewhere before it is all over.
> > >
> > > Charlie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > From: Chuck Bealke
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 2:23 AM
> > > To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> > > Subject: Re: [AT] Talking about shops/sheds + (OT) Building Code
> > > Changes
> > > On 3/5/2011 9:14 PM, Larry Goss wrote:
> > > > You understand completely, Ralph.  REALLY
> > > completely!  It's the most
> > > > frustrating thing you can imagine.  The old tubes were
> > > efficient, just not
> > > > as efficient as someone wanted us to be.  So we've 
> got to
> > > go through and
> > > > change out everything.  When I changed the incandescent
> > > emergency exit
> > > > lights at the church over to CFL's, I did the calculation on
> > > power savings
> > > > alone and found that we amortized the complete cost of the
> > > changeover in
> > > > less than one year.  But the congregation doesn't
> > > understand the full
> > > > meaning of what I say when I tell them that the infrastructure
> > > of the
> > > > church isn't worth our efforts to save it.  None of it
> > > was built to code.
> > > > Even though it is only around 50 years old, everything has to
> > > be
> > > > replaced -- all the plumbing, electrical, HVAC, septic,
> > > parking lot
> > > > paving, outdoor drainage, concrete floor, single glazed
> > > windows with steel
> > > > casement frames,  --- everything.  The sound system
> > > stopped working about
> > > > a dozen years ago because the insulation rotted off th!
> > > e copper wires of the 70 volt audio output.  It's all in
> > > steel electrical
> > > conduit, so it shorts out very easily.  But it's NOT 
> just a
> > > job for pulling
> > > out the old wire and pulling in new.  All the original
> > > conduit was
> > > undersized, and you can't pull anything out to replace it
> > > because the new
> > > stuff is larger in diameter and won't even fit the existing
> > > space.  It's a
> > > good example for why nothing should ever be left up to a 
> committee.> > >
> > > > Larry
> > >
> > > Ralph and Larry,
> > >
> > > Code changes over time that render church structures non-code
> > > compliantand thus pose financial threats is one pregnant
> > > topic.  I have been on
> > > the finance - sorry, Larry - committee of our church for seven
> > years.> It has been an education on building inspectors 
> finding fault
> > > with what
> > > was in the mid 50s - when the church was built well and met
> > all the
> > > applicable city and other codes - a splendid, high quality
> > > building.  As
> > > you likely know, churches are by and large threatened by 
> diminishing> > membership and finances in this age.  Many 
> in our area have
> > > closed or
> > > are in the process.  Elevators, wiring, and fire protection
> > > equipmentcome to mind as items subject to new requirements which
> > > can threaten
> > > church financial solvency pronto.  In our case, we have a
> > > school on
> > > property (Grades 1-5) and some florescent tubes overhead.
> > > Hope the
> > > changes to lighting requirements like those mentioned in 
> your shop
> > > discussions will not represent too bad a cost for us.  Will
> > > check it
> > > out.   Thanks for the heads-up guys.
> > >
> > >
> > > _|___\  __
> > > |_____/
> > > \          ~ Chuck
> > > Bealke ~ Dallas ~
> > > (  )       \__/
> > >
> > > Surfing find of the week: http://www.thebarnjournal.org/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AT mailing list
> > > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AT mailing list
> > > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT mailing list
> > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT mailing list
> > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at 
> 



More information about the AT mailing list