J. Clarke on Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:33:11
-0400 typed in rec.woodworking the following:

I'd wager that isn't necessarily so, but the point isn't/wasn't whether
the particular is or isn't subject to Code.

It's at least reasonable to check on what UBC says is minimum just for
knowing whether one decides to follow or not.

Does sound somewhat skimpy depending upon just what it actually does
consist of in the upper "loft".

Personally I'm an engineer--I'm happy to do my own stress analysis.

Best friend at church is a Civil Engineer. And he also makes note
of the necessity of knowing the jargon: That is not a rear deck and
dock. That is a 'wildlife observation platform".

And the repairs to grandpa's cabin to bring it up to code and wind
up with a building that's a third larger than the old one.

This is a "shed":
https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/cities/ecausseville/airship-shed
So is this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A6D5y0SCQAAktVs?format=jpg&name=medium
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?