Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

Thanks,
Kevin

In article .com, " wrote:
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

Not where I am -- but it may be different where you are. Your best bet is to
call the local building inspection authority and ask them. That's the only way
you're going to get an answer you can rely on.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:18:02 -0000, wrote:
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

In my jurisdiction, a permit is required to "finish" a basement. Is your
celing part of such a project?

Your best bet is to call your municipal building inspections department,
and ask.

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

Typically, a permit is not required for any activity you can't see from the
outside. wink.

(that should bring on the flames)

--
Steve Barker





" wrote in message
oups.com...
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

Thanks,
Kevin

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Typically, a permit is not required for any activity you can't see from
the outside. wink.

(that should bring on the flames)



I pay enough taxes without adding to it with permits.

" wrote in message
oups.com...
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?


Why would anyone care? Why would anyone consider a permit for something
like that?

OTOH, if you are concerned. send me your check for $25 , payable to Mr.
CASH, and I'll send you an authentic permit.

In article .com,
wrote:
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

Thanks,
Kevin


Typically, some jurisdictions would require a permit while others typically
would not.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

My builder had to have it inspected and it was rejected until he added
hangers to hold it in case of earthquake. This is in central NC. I don't
believe there has ever been an earthquake here.


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:qBZ8i.5621$Uy4.435@trndny09...

" wrote in message
oups.com...
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?


Why would anyone care? Why would anyone consider a permit for something
like that?

OTOH, if you are concerned. send me your check for $25 , payable to Mr.
CASH, and I'll send you an authentic permit.

" wrote in message
oups.com...
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

Thanks,
Kevin

Only if you want your taxes raised. They don't need to know what your doing
in your basement.

Many areas will "require" a permit to hang a picture on the wall (tongue in
cheek), but other than collect the fee and make you fill in some paperwork
will do nothing other than issue the permit. They don't have the time or the
inclination to inspect such minor work. I wouldn't bother but then I usually
install or build to "better than code".

"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

Thanks,
Kevin


Typically, some jurisdictions would require a permit while others
typically
would not.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:18:02 -0000, "
wrote:

Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?

Thanks,
Kevin

The government will sell a permit to anyone for anything if you let
them. It's pure profit for them. I believe in the "Dont Ask, Dont
Tell" policy. They dont know everything that exists in every home in
their city. Of course this all depends on where you live too. I live
in a rural area and we only need permits for major consruction, such
as a new home, large home additon, garage, barn, etc. We dont need
them for a small deck or porch, small garden shed, and definately not
to replace or change a ceiling. Now if you live in the "communist"
state of CA, you better get a permit everytime you walk the dog or
change a faucet washer.....
Once you go to their office, they surely will see dollar signs flash
in front of their face and will find some excuse to sell you a permit.

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:02:21 GMT, "Art"
wrote:

My builder had to have it inspected and it was rejected until he added
hangers to hold it in case of earthquake. This is in central NC. I don't
believe there has ever been an earthquake here.


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:qBZ8i.5621$Uy4.435@trndny09...

" wrote in message
oups.com...
Typically, is a permit required in order to install a suspended (aka
drop) ceiling (i.e. in a basement)?


Why would anyone care? Why would anyone consider a permit for something
like that?

OTOH, if you are concerned. send me your check for $25 , payable to Mr.
CASH, and I'll send you an authentic permit.



Just think of the pain, suffering and deaths that would occur if those
half pound (mostly styrofoam) tiles fell on you and others......

finish your basement and see property taxes go up...........

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:37:07 -0500, wrote:
The government will sell a permit to anyone for anything if you let
them. It's pure profit for them.

Nonsense. What requires a permit and what does not is very well spelled
out in the municipal building code.

And I find the notion of "profit" in a govermnent context quite amusing.

I believe in the "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" policy.

Great advice. Until the OP wants to sell that house.

They dont know everything that exists in every home in their city.

Yes, they do. They have a record of every permit pulled, including those
covering the original construction.

If an inspection is required before the house can be sold (as is the
case in the rural community that I live in), what happens with changes
and additions depends on just how through the inspector is and whether
or not the work was obviously done after construction and would have
required a permit.

The consequences could be as bad as a fine (that is probably many times
more expensive than the original permit would have been) and an order
that would prevent the sale of the house until the work was torn out.

I just don't see what's so difficult about ASKING the AHJ if a permit is
required, and then following though accordingly.

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

"Art Greenberg" wrote in message

They dont know everything that exists in every home in their city.

Yes, they do. They have a record of every permit pulled, including those
covering the original construction.

If an inspection is required before the house can be sold (as is the
case in the rural community that I live in), what happens with changes
and additions depends on just how through the inspector is and whether
or not the work was obviously done after construction and would have
required a permit.

What city in Russia do you live in? I certainly don't ever want to move
there.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:40:30 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Art Greenberg" wrote in message

They dont know everything that exists in every home in their city.

Yes, they do. They have a record of every permit pulled, including those
covering the original construction.

If an inspection is required before the house can be sold (as is the
case in the rural community that I live in), what happens with changes
and additions depends on just how through the inspector is and whether
or not the work was obviously done after construction and would have
required a permit.

What city in Russia do you live in? I certainly don't ever want to move
there.

I have sold three houses, and there were inspections by the AHJ in every
case. These were in Hamilton Township, Mercer County and Clinton
Township, Hunterdon County - both NJ.

You do know that a Certificate of Occupancy has to be issued to close a
sale, don't you? The AHJ won't issue a CO without an inspection. At the
time of inspection, the AHJ has the right and authority to look for
unauthorized work. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You wouldn't want
to move into a house where some hack had done a bunch of electrical
work, or gas plumbing, or something else that wasn't inspected and that
had the potential to cause you harm, would you?

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:40:30 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Art Greenberg" wrote in message
They dont know everything that exists in every home in their city.
Yes, they do. They have a record of every permit pulled, including those
covering the original construction.

If an inspection is required before the house can be sold (as is the
case in the rural community that I live in), what happens with changes
and additions depends on just how through the inspector is and whether
or not the work was obviously done after construction and would have
required a permit.
What city in Russia do you live in? I certainly don't ever want to move
there.

I have sold three houses, and there were inspections by the AHJ in every
case. These were in Hamilton Township, Mercer County and Clinton
Township, Hunterdon County - both NJ.

You do know that a Certificate of Occupancy has to be issued to close a
sale, don't you? The AHJ won't issue a CO without an inspection. At the
time of inspection, the AHJ has the right and authority to look for
unauthorized work. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You wouldn't want
to move into a house where some hack had done a bunch of electrical
work, or gas plumbing, or something else that wasn't inspected and that
had the potential to cause you harm, would you?

I don't know what "AHJ" stands for???

A CO certainly isn't a requirement for a sale to close in many (I'd even
venture most) jurisdictions.

There is a requirement in most (is it all now? I don't know) states for
a disclosure form to be supplied by the seller to a prospective buyer,
but for all jurisdictions I've been in, any actual inspection is a
requirement placed by either the buyer or perhaps the lending
institution, not something with any actual legal authority.

As for the rhetorical question, it's a mixed bag -- if I were buying a
property w/ the intent of moving in and expecting to live in it w/ no
upgrades/maintenance required, sure I'd want anything _significant_
found in an inspection taken care of. OTOH, maybe I'm looking for a
"fixer-upper" or similar and I'd far prefer to take the house "as-is"
and use sweat equity to fix it up rather than have to pay up front.
And, that doesn't even begin to address the philosophical front of
whether it's "big gov't's" role or that of the buyer. Many are more on
the side of the latter than the former...

--

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:25:17 -0500, dpb wrote:
I don't know what "AHJ" stands for???

Authority Having Jurisdiction. Shorthand for whatever government agency
has its hand in this.

A CO certainly isn't a requirement for a sale to close in many (I'd
even venture most) jurisdictions.

News to me, but then I've only sold and purchased homes in NJ.

I've had to move an electrical outlet (closer to a "shop light"
flourescent fixture in the basement so as to eliminate an extension
cord), repoint a masonry chimney, and repair an exterior railing to
satisfy an AHJ in previous sales. All clearly code issues.

As the buyer, I do not interact with the AHJ, and I think (not certain)
that any inspection I purchase will come after the AHJ has given
approval. I do know that inspection reports I have received have not
called out code issues.

There is a requirement in most (is it all now? I don't know) states
for a disclosure form to be supplied by the seller to a prospective
buyer, but for all jurisdictions I've been in, any actual inspection
is a requirement placed by either the buyer or perhaps the lending
institution, not something with any actual legal authority.

Requirement for inspection by AHJ here is in addition to and separate
from anything required by the buyer. Real estate disclosure is required
here, and again is separate from government inspection; it includes all
issues known to seller, including things that would not be covered by an
inspection such as easements and deed restrictions. Real estate agents
suggest that buyers order an inspection from an independent provider,
but this is not mandatory.

As for the rhetorical question, it's a mixed bag -- if I were buying a
property w/ the intent of moving in and expecting to live in it w/ no
upgrades/maintenance required, sure I'd want anything _significant_
found in an inspection taken care of. OTOH, maybe I'm looking for a
"fixer-upper" or similar and I'd far prefer to take the house "as-is"
and use sweat equity to fix it up rather than have to pay up front.
And, that doesn't even begin to address the philosophical front of
whether it's "big gov't's" role or that of the buyer. Many are more on
the side of the latter than the former...

I agree about a "fixer". I do not know what provision the law here makes
for such a thing. I have seen real estate listings specify "structure
as-is", essentially disclaiming suitability for occupancy. In such a
case, I think buyer is buying the land, and no CO would be forthcoming.
Just a guess, but I think a very small minority of buyers are looking
for or would be willing to purchase a fixer.

It is my understanding that as a seller, I would NOT have the option to
negotiate code issues, found by the AHJ, with the buyer.

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

"Art Greenberg" wrote in message
I have sold three houses, and there were inspections by the AHJ in every
case. These were in Hamilton Township, Mercer County and Clinton
Township, Hunterdon County - both NJ.

You do know that a Certificate of Occupancy has to be issued to close a
sale, don't you?

No, not here where I am in CT or where I was in PA. A CO is issued when
the house if first built. Some work does require a permit of course. Some
of our towns still do not have zoning or land use rules and the locals are
adamantly against it.


The AHJ won't issue a CO without an inspection. At the
time of inspection, the AHJ has the right and authority to look for
unauthorized work. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You wouldn't want
to move into a house where some hack had done a bunch of electrical
work, or gas plumbing, or something else that wasn't inspected and that
had the potential to cause you harm, would you?

I always figured it was up to me to decide if I want a house or not, to
inspect it or not. Permits, codes, building inspections have a place.

Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:25:17 -0500, dpb wrote:
I don't know what "AHJ" stands for???

Authority Having Jurisdiction. Shorthand for whatever government agency
has its hand in this.

A CO certainly isn't a requirement for a sale to close in many (I'd
even venture most) jurisdictions.

News to me, but then I've only sold and purchased homes in NJ.

I've had to move an electrical outlet (closer to a "shop light"
flourescent fixture in the basement so as to eliminate an extension
cord), repoint a masonry chimney, and repair an exterior railing to
satisfy an AHJ in previous sales. All clearly code issues.

As the buyer, I do not interact with the AHJ, and I think (not certain)
that any inspection I purchase will come after the AHJ has given
approval. I do know that inspection reports I have received have not
called out code issues.

There is a requirement in most (is it all now? I don't know) states
for a disclosure form to be supplied by the seller to a prospective
buyer, but for all jurisdictions I've been in, any actual inspection
is a requirement placed by either the buyer or perhaps the lending
institution, not something with any actual legal authority.

Requirement for inspection by AHJ here is in addition to and separate
from anything required by the buyer. Real estate disclosure is required
here, and again is separate from government inspection; it includes all
issues known to seller, including things that would not be covered by an
inspection such as easements and deed restrictions. Real estate agents
suggest that buyers order an inspection from an independent provider,
but this is not mandatory.

As for the rhetorical question, it's a mixed bag -- if I were buying a
property w/ the intent of moving in and expecting to live in it w/ no
upgrades/maintenance required, sure I'd want anything _significant_
found in an inspection taken care of. OTOH, maybe I'm looking for a
"fixer-upper" or similar and I'd far prefer to take the house "as-is"
and use sweat equity to fix it up rather than have to pay up front.
And, that doesn't even begin to address the philosophical front of
whether it's "big gov't's" role or that of the buyer. Many are more on
the side of the latter than the former...

I agree about a "fixer". I do not know what provision the law here makes
for such a thing. I have seen real estate listings specify "structure
as-is", essentially disclaiming suitability for occupancy. In such a
case, I think buyer is buying the land, and no CO would be forthcoming.
Just a guess, but I think a very small minority of buyers are looking
for or would be willing to purchase a fixer.

It is my understanding that as a seller, I would NOT have the option to
negotiate code issues, found by the AHJ, with the buyer.

I (obviously) don't know NJ law, but somehow I'm having a hard time
believing there is force of law behind much of this as far as closing on
a sale. I can believe local jurisdictions may have requirements for a
CO prior to actually occupying a dwelling, but having a much harder time
believing they can prevent a willing seller/buyer from consummating a
transfer of title to a dwelling prior to it meeting all current code(s)...

That just "doesn't sound right". I could see where for a typical
homeowner/buyer it might "look" like that, but there has to be a way for
dilapidated properties, for example, to be bought/sold--otherwise, they
never would be and I really don't think that's the case.

None of this is meant as a personal castigation, I'm just thinking the
details of the law and how it may appear for "ordinary" transactions
aren't totally in consonance...and, of course, I _could_ be wrong...

Something similar to this came up not too long ago and I did a web
search for state laws in (I really want to say it was NJ) and came up w/
basically the same thing as other states -- the disclosure form was all
that was actually in state law. Inspections were optional (although
highly recommended to the buyer of course) and noted as possibly being
required by lenders for example to qualify a loan, but not required by
the force of law. That search, obviously, was at the state level and
local jurisdictions can do more, but probably not too much more or they
would have such a rebellion from property owners who couldn't divest
that can't seem them being able to go that far...

IMO, ymmv, $0.02, etc, etc., etc., ...

--


--

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:29:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

I (obviously) don't know NJ law, but somehow I'm having a hard time
believing there is force of law behind much of this as far as closing
on a sale. I can believe local jurisdictions may have requirements
for a CO prior to actually occupying a dwelling, but having a much
harder time believing they can prevent a willing seller/buyer from
consummating a transfer of title to a dwelling prior to it meeting
all current code(s)...

Current codes? No! Unless work had been done w/o a permit. Then they
might enforce current. Otherwise I'm sure typical grandfathering
applies.

And I can tell you that my personal experience in selling is contrary to
your belief. The AHJ did inspect prior to closing, and did require
repairs before closing could take place.

That just "doesn't sound right". I could see where for a typical
homeowner/buyer it might "look" like that, but there has to be a way
for dilapidated properties, for example, to be
bought/sold--otherwise, they never would be and I really don't think
that's the case.

As I said before, I have no first hand experience with "as-is" sales,
dilapidated or otherwise. I am sure provisions exist.

None of this is meant as a personal castigation, I'm just thinking
the details of the law and how it may appear for "ordinary"
transactions aren't totally in consonance...and, of course, I _could_
be wrong...

My personal experience says you are, at least around here. And not just
for the initial sale of new construction, but for resale as well.

I'll have to dig and see if I kept any of that paperwork ...

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:29:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

....

And I can tell you that my personal experience in selling is contrary to
your belief. The AHJ did inspect prior to closing, and did require
repairs before closing could take place.
....

If that's so, then I'm definitely w/ Edwin on being glad I'm not there...

--

On Jun 11, 3:07 pm, dpb wrote:
Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:29:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

...

And I can tell you that my personal experience in selling is contrary to
your belief. The AHJ did inspect prior to closing, and did require
repairs before closing could take place.

...

If that's so, then I'm definitely w/ Edwin on being glad I'm not there...

--

Based on this thread, I'm now REALLY sure that NJ is a good place to
be "from".

Having been "from" NJ for nearly 50 years!

Even the People's Republic of Kalifornia is less intrusive (but not by
much), who woulda thunk?

cheers
Bob

"BobK207" wrote

Having been "from" NJ for nearly 50 years!

Even the People's Republic of Kalifornia is less intrusive (but not by
much), who woulda thunk?

I have had inspectors in my NJ house any number of times and
they never even blinked at any things I had done without permits.
I think the permit inspection thing is overstated. Just my experience
in my town.

nancy

BobK207 wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:07 pm, dpb wrote:
Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:29:40 -0500, dpb wrote:
...

And I can tell you that my personal experience in selling is contrary to
your belief. The AHJ did inspect prior to closing, and did require
repairs before closing could take place.
...

If that's so, then I'm definitely w/ Edwin on being glad I'm not there...

--

Based on this thread, I'm now REALLY sure that NJ is a good place to
be "from".

Having been "from" NJ for nearly 50 years!

Even the People's Republic of Kalifornia is less intrusive (but not by
much), who woulda thunk?

Well, I got curious again and did do (actually repeated because I
discovered pretty quickly my previous search _had_ been NJ as I thought
I recalled) a fairly long search of NJ statute and what I could find of
real estate buy/sell advice. I found _NO_ indication of any state law
requiring a jurisdictionally sponsored or required inspection other than
the seller disclosure form nor any other indication that any of these
restrictions are actually law, at least at the State level. In perusing
this, I found several sites of NJ-licensed inspectors and all of them
indicated their services were optional to the buyer except possibly by
the lending institutions, etc., as we all know.

My conclusion is still that many/most/(all?) of the hoops Art has jumped
through are either very local (and I found several sections in NJ
statute Sect. 46 that mentioned they overrode the localities' ability to
write their own regulations altho I can't swear in such a quick review
those cover all possible items) or a case of a realtor/broker/agent
handling the transaction and masking the actual legal _minimum_
requirements by handling it at a "higher level" if you will.

I'll be interested to see what additional info Art actually has as it
would be interesting to see just how bad it has gotten in some
localities if it is indeed that bad...

--

Experience in NJ- two towns needed CO- one didnt -the one that didnt
only checked fir CO and smoke detector and fire extinguishers


On Jun 11, 3:59 pm, Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:25:17 -0500, dpb wrote:
I don't know what "AHJ" stands for???

Authority Having Jurisdiction. Shorthand for whatever government agency
has its hand in this.

A CO certainly isn't a requirement for a sale to close in many (I'd
even venture most) jurisdictions.

News to me, but then I've only sold and purchased homes in NJ.

I've had to move an electrical outlet (closer to a "shop light"
flourescent fixture in the basement so as to eliminate an extension
cord), repoint a masonry chimney, and repair an exterior railing to
satisfy an AHJ in previous sales. All clearly code issues.

As the buyer, I do not interact with the AHJ, and I think (not certain)
that any inspection I purchase will come after the AHJ has given
approval. I do know that inspection reports I have received have not
called out code issues.

There is a requirement in most (is it all now? I don't know) states
for a disclosure form to be supplied by the seller to a prospective
buyer, but for all jurisdictions I've been in, any actual inspection
is a requirement placed by either the buyer or perhaps the lending
institution, not something with any actual legal authority.

Requirement for inspection by AHJ here is in addition to and separate
from anything required by the buyer. Real estate disclosure is required
here, and again is separate from government inspection; it includes all
issues known to seller, including things that would not be covered by an
inspection such as easements and deed restrictions. Real estate agents
suggest that buyers order an inspection from an independent provider,
but this is not mandatory.

As for the rhetorical question, it's a mixed bag -- if I were buying a
property w/ the intent of moving in and expecting to live in it w/ no
upgrades/maintenance required, sure I'd want anything _significant_
found in an inspection taken care of. OTOH, maybe I'm looking for a
"fixer-upper" or similar and I'd far prefer to take the house "as-is"
and use sweat equity to fix it up rather than have to pay up front.
And, that doesn't even begin to address the philosophical front of
whether it's "big gov't's" role or that of the buyer. Many are more on
the side of the latter than the former...

I agree about a "fixer". I do not know what provision the law here makes
for such a thing. I have seen real estate listings specify "structure
as-is", essentially disclaiming suitability for occupancy. In such a
case, I think buyer is buying the land, and no CO would be forthcoming.
Just a guess, but I think a very small minority of buyers are looking
for or would be willing to purchase a fixer.

It is my understanding that as a seller, I would NOT have the option to
negotiate code issues, found by the AHJ, with the buyer.

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

Why would NJ inspectors be in your house numerous times?
Private house or multiple dwelling?

--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Nancy Young" wrote in message
. ..

"BobK207" wrote

Having been "from" NJ for nearly 50 years!

Even the People's Republic of Kalifornia is less intrusive (but not by
much), who woulda thunk?

I have had inspectors in my NJ house any number of times and
they never even blinked at any things I had done without permits.
I think the permit inspection thing is overstated. Just my experience
in my town.

nancy

On Jun 11, 4:25 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Art Greenberg" wrote in message
I have sold three houses, and there were inspections by the AHJ in every
case. These were in Hamilton Township, Mercer County and Clinton
Township, Hunterdon County - both NJ.

You do know that a Certificate of Occupancy has to be issued to close a
sale, don't you?

No, not here where I am in CT or where I was in PA. A CO is issued when
the house if first built. Some work does require a permit of course. Some
of our towns still do not have zoning or land use rules and the locals are
adamantly against it.

The AHJ won't issue a CO without an inspection. At the
time of inspection, the AHJ has the right and authority to look for
unauthorized work. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You wouldn't want
to move into a house where some hack had done a bunch of electrical
work, or gas plumbing, or something else that wasn't inspected and that
had the potential to cause you harm, would you?

I always figured it was up to me to decide if I want a house or not, to
inspect it or not. Permits, codes, building inspections have a place.

Haven't you learned that government believes people can't possibly be
trusted to make such decisions on their own behalf?

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote

Why would NJ inspectors be in your house numerous times?
Private house or multiple dwelling?

New air conditioner, new furnace, new water heater ... the company
who does that stuff for me always files permits.

Personally, I think if you have work done by licensed professionals,
you shouldn't need an inspection, but hey, who doesn't love hanging
around all day for someone to look at a wire and walk off.

It is stated on the permit that the inspector will look for smoke and
CO detectors while they are there, but they never do.

Also, they aren't NJ inspectors, they are my town's inspectors.

I have had inspectors in my NJ house any number of times and
they never even blinked at any things I had done without permits.
I think the permit inspection thing is overstated. Just my experience
in my town.

nancy

"Nancy Young" wrote

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote

Why would NJ inspectors be in your house numerous times?
Private house or multiple dwelling?

New air conditioner, new furnace, new water heater ... the company
who does that stuff for me always files permits.

Personally, I think if you have work done by licensed professionals,
you shouldn't need an inspection, but hey, who doesn't love hanging
around all day for someone to look at a wire and walk off.

It is stated on the permit that the inspector will look for smoke and
CO detectors while they are there, but they never do.

Also, they aren't NJ inspectors, they are my town's inspectors.

Ooops, I forgot to mention, I handled the sale of 2 homes and purchase
of 1 for my inlaws, that is where the CofOs came in. All they looked
for were safety issues, not what work was done with or without
permits. This was in 2 other municipalities.

nancy

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:01:05 -0500, dpb wrote:
Well, I got curious again and did do (actually repeated because I
discovered pretty quickly my previous search _had_ been NJ as I thought
I recalled) a fairly long search of NJ statute and what I could find of
real estate buy/sell advice. I found _NO_ indication of any state law
requiring a jurisdictionally sponsored or required inspection other than
the seller disclosure form nor any other indication that any of these
restrictions are actually law, at least at the State level. In perusing
this, I found several sites of NJ-licensed inspectors and all of them
indicated their services were optional to the buyer except possibly by
the lending institutions, etc., as we all know.

My conclusion is still that many/most/(all?) of the hoops Art has jumped
through are either very local (and I found several sections in NJ
statute Sect. 46 that mentioned they overrode the localities' ability to
write their own regulations altho I can't swear in such a quick review
those cover all possible items) or a case of a realtor/broker/agent
handling the transaction and masking the actual legal _minimum_
requirements by handling it at a "higher level" if you will.

I'll be interested to see what additional info Art actually has as it
would be interesting to see just how bad it has gotten in some
localities if it is indeed that bad...

Well, I've been away on business and unable to follow up. I did a quick
search for paperwork relating to my previous home sales, and didn't find
anything germane.

But I did find something useful ... here is the relevant section of the
Code of Hamilton Twp., Mercer County:

Sec. 66-63. Inspection prior to change in occupancy; certificate of approval.

(a) Prior to any change in occupancy of any house, hotel, dwelling,
dwelling unit, roominghouse, rooming unit, boardinghouse, motel,
apartment unit or premises which is used, partially used or intended to
be used for human occupancy, a certificate of approval shall first have
been obtained from the office of the superintendent of inspections,
stating that the building and premises comply with the requirements of
the township ordinances. In the case of a hotel or motel, this section
shall only apply in those cases involving permanent, rather than
transient, residence.

(b) An inspection shall be obtained either by the owner or the owner's
agent prior to a change in occupancy and shall be performed by the
office of the superintendent of inspections for the purpose of
determining if a certificate of approval may be issued.

(c) Inspections pursuant to subsection (b) of this section shall be
conducted using the following criteria:

(1) All violations of township ordinances shall be reflected in the
inspection report in order to provide notice to the owner or prospective
owner or occupant of such violations.

(2) A violation of the plumbing code which poses a positive or obvious
major threat to the health, safety or welfare of any potential
occupancy, a violation of the electrical code which poses a positive or
obvious major threat to the health, safety or welfare of any potential
occupancy, or any other condition which poses a positive or obvious
threat to the health, safety or welfare of any potential occupancy shall
be deemed a major violation of the housing code and shall be designated
to the owner, potential owner or occupant separately on the inspection
report.

(d) Violations of the kind described in subsection (c)(2) of this
section must be corrected by the owner of the unit before the issuance
of a certificate of approval. The responsibility for correction of a
violation of the housing code which is not a major violation may, except
in the case of a rental, be assumed by the buyer, with the written
notification and approval of the seller, buyer and superintendent of
inspections. At the time of such assumption of responsibility, a
conditional certificate of approvalmay be issued, and the violations
shall be corrected by the buyer within 30 days of the date of issuance
of the conditional certificate of approval. The director of engineering,
planning and inspections may grant an extension not exceeding 30 days
for just cause.

(e) An unconditional certificate of approval shall be issued by the
office of the superintendent of inspections at such time as the
superintendent is satisfied that all violations have been corrected.

(f) The completed certificate of approval shall contain the names of
both the seller or landlord and the buyer or tenant. One copy of the
completed certificate of approval as provided by the township shall
remain each with the seller or landlord and the buyer or tenant.

(g) In the case of a rental, the landlord shall ensure that the tenant
shall sign a tenant's receipt as provided by the township upon receiving
the tenant's copy of the certificate of approval. The landlord shall
then, within ten days, upon securing the tenant's signature, forward the
signed tenant's receipt to the superintendent of inspections.

(h) A certificate of approval is valid for the authorization of
occupancy for a period of 90 days after issuance. The director of
engineering, planning and inspections may authorize extensions of 30
days only upon presentment of sufficient proof that the extension is
necessary due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of
parties involved.

(i) The purpose of this section is to continue to ensure compliance
with the various township ordinances and the housing code in order to
maintain high standards of housing both for homeowners and apartment
dwellers within the township. However, the township, by this section, is
not acting as a guarantor of any property insofar as any potential owner
or occupant is concerned, nor shall the township be considered to be
involved in any manner in the contractual relationships between the
parties.

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

Art Greenberg wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:01:05 -0500, dpb wrote:
Well, I got curious again and did do (actually repeated because I
discovered pretty quickly my previous search _had_ been NJ as I thought
I recalled) a fairly long search of NJ statute and what I could find of
real estate buy/sell advice. I found _NO_ indication of any state law
requiring a jurisdictionally sponsored or required inspection other than
the seller disclosure form nor any other indication that any of these
restrictions are actually law, at least at the State level. ...
I'll be interested to see what additional info Art actually has as it
would be interesting to see just how bad it has gotten in some
localities if it is indeed that bad...

Well, I've been away on business and unable to follow up. I did a quick
search for paperwork relating to my previous home sales, and didn't find
anything germane.

But I did find something useful ... here is the relevant section of the
Code of Hamilton Twp., Mercer County:
....

....snip code for brevity...

OK, that is TWP, not state as I surmised must be local.

While somewhat onerous and, imo, somewhat overbearing, it doesn't
actually prohibit transfer of title and there is the "out" clause of a
conditional COA and the lesser of buyer-accepted qualification.

One would presume they couldn't enforce it for the sale of a currently
unoccupied residence, either to prohibit the transfer of title, only
that they can prevent actually occupancy until serious deficiencies are
addressed.

But still, makes one glad to not be in NJ...

--

"Art Greenberg" wrote in message
...

But I did find something useful ... here is the relevant section of the
Code of Hamilton Twp., Mercer County:

Sec. 66-63. Inspection prior to change in occupancy; certificate of
approval.

(a) Prior to any change in occupancy of any house, hotel, dwelling,
dwelling unit, roominghouse, rooming unit, boardinghouse, motel,
apartment unit or premises which is used, partially used or intended to
be used for human occupancy, a certificate of approval shall first have
been obtained from the office of the superintendent of inspections,
stating that the building and premises comply with the requirements of
the township ordinances. In the case of a hotel or motel, this section
shall only apply in those cases involving permanent, rather than
transient, residence.

..

(f) The completed certificate of approval shall contain the names of
both the seller or landlord and the buyer or tenant. One copy of the
completed certificate of approval as provided by the township shall
remain each with the seller or landlord and the buyer or tenant.

(i) The purpose of this section is to continue to ensure compliance
with the various township ordinances and the housing code in order to
maintain high standards of housing both for homeowners and apartment
dwellers within the township.

Wow, that is a very restrictive set of rules. Thanks for posting it so I
never move to the Socialist Republic of Hamilton Township.

The way I read this, if your tenant bails on you in six months, you have to
go through the same inspection BS again. And again when he moves.

For comparison sake, the city of Hartford is supposed to annually inspect
commercial buildings for fire safety. Some have not been inspected in 20
years due to lack of funding. I cannot image the budget and work force
needed to do every home or apartment when it changes occupants.