Excessive Permits In Lula?

Today is Independence Day.  Let’s be Independent!

If you like things to the point without a whole lot of boring reading, here it is. If an International Codes Council (ICC) all agree that 10 things pose no safety concern and should NOT require a permit for a home owner to build or add to their own property, why on earth do certain City of Lula Council members and Mayor feel they know better than the entire code community and absolutely must require you to pay for a permit and pay for inspections for those same 10 things?

If you agree with the premise the ICC probably know best what should require a permit or not (or if you agree with my premise after reading this entire article), please exercise your right and duty to be involved in your community and tell the members of the City of Lula – Planning and Zoning Committee to go ahead and accept the 10 things that should NOT require a permit. Or at least accept the modified version that council member, Tony Cornett, provided the in print on June 12, 2023.

The City of Lula – Planning and Zoning Committee consists of the following council members:
Mayor – Joe Thomas – joe.thomas@cityoflula.com
Council Member – Gene Bramlett – gene.bramlett@cityoflula.com
Council Member – Garnett Smith – garnet.smith@cityoflula.com

Dive Deeper

Are you like me and always want to fully understand an issue, dive deeper, and understand the “Big Picture”, before making a decision about your stance on an issue? Well, here it is…

Who is the ICC?

The ICC is the International Code Council is an “association 360 global chapters dedicated to developing model codes and standards used in the design, build and compliance process to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures in the built environment,” and “members include architects, engineers, designers, builders, labor groups, contractors, elected officials, manufacturers and other representatives of the fire, plumbing, mechanical and construction industry.” Additional members are, “energy officials representing federal, state, county and municipal governments.”

But don’t take my word for it. Go see for yourself at https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/fact-sheet.pdf

The entire state of Georgia, as well as an international community, adopt the standards in whole comprising 44 Chapters and some states including Georgia allow leeway to the local municipalities in Chapter 1 Part 1 and Part 2 for the purposes of how they plan to enforce the codes. For Lula, Part 1 Section 105.2 – Work Exempt from permit – Building, seems to be the most contentious. Note that no matter what is decided in Chapter 1, it does not void your requirement to follow all code in chapters 2 through 44.

Since all of the code becomes law that you must obey after passage of an ordinance, you should at least have access to see what laws you are expected to obey. Therefore, the ICC has provided you with free access to the code knowledge you will be expected to follow should you ever construct something that would require a permit and inspection.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2018P7/chapter-1-scope-and-administration

Keep in mind that Georgia law allows you to perform your own work on your own home if you own your home, however, it does NOT allow you to perform work on someone else’s home without a license if that work requires a permit. Nevertheless, all work requiring a permit must be in compliance with the code.

Here is the code content that seems to be causing all the comotion…

R105.2 Work exempt from permit.

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 ot ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:

Building:
(This is the ORIGINAL VERSION – NOT MODIFIED BY CITY OF LULA – See next section for code that has been modified.)

1. One-story detached accessory structures, provided that the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet (18.58 m’).

2. Fences not over 7 feet (2134 mm) high.

3. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge.

4. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1.

5. Sidewalks and driveways

6. Painting. papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work.

7. Prefabricated swimming pools that are less than 24 inches (610 mm) deep.

8. Swings and other playground equipment.

9. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall that do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wail and do not require additional support.

10. Decks not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58sm) in area, that are not
more than 30 inches (762mm) above grade at any point, are not attached
to a dwelling and do not serve the exit door required by Section R311.4.

Here are the same 10 itmes that have been modified and submitted for review.
I have modified Item number 1 to align with Hall county. Council has jointly agreed to modifications for Items 2, 5, and 7.

Building:
1. Other than storm shelters, any one-story detached accessory structure that does not exceed 144 square feet, will not require utilities such as electricity or plumbing, and not on a permanent foundation such as a concrete pad, as long as the structure is not placed less than 5 feet from any lot line.

2. Fences not over 8 feet (2438.134 mm) high.

3. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge.

4. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed 5,000 gallons (18 927 L) and the ratio of height to diameter or width does not exceed 2 to 1.

5. Sidewalks and driveways. Still requires Driveway location permit approval

6. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work.

7. Prefabricated swimming pools that are less than 52 inches (1320.8 mm) deep.

8. Swings and other playground equipment.

9. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall that do not project more than 54 inches (1372 mm) from the exterior wall and do not require additional support.

10. Decks not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58 m2) in area that are not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling and do not serve the exit door required by Section R311.4.

For item number 5, I can unerstand requiring a permit for a driveway, only because you already have to request a ‘Curb Cut’ to add a driveway according to zoning requiriements (even if there is no actual curb) to ensure there are no issues with water runoff, traffic concerns, or debris entering the roadway.

For item number 1 – Accessory structures, let’s first understand the purpose of why citizens want them. They generally want to have the to store safely store items inside. Storage buildings exist to protect the assests and apparatus (i.e. mowers, hedge trimmmers, string trimmers, and other gas or electric apparatus) used to maintain the yard and its appearance. We should be encouraging people to buy such items to not only beautify our community but also provide sales tax revenue that we receive from Hall and Banks county and rely on to operate our city.

Are we wanting to tell homeowners with limited space or no garage at all to store these items in garages or even in their homes resulting in a more unsafe environment? Safe storage is why we have storage buidlings in the first place.

Let’s now talk about item number 10 – Deck

These are decks not exceeding 200 square feet.  They also cannot be attached to our house. So there decks are out in the middle of the yard.  While decks such as these are very rare and uncommon, when they are built,  it is usually just to provide the home owner with some extra space to place a table, chairs and perhaps an umbrella.  Again, the ICC finds no safety concerns and recommend that permits not be required for such decks.

OBJECTIONS FROM PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE

OBJECTION 1: The first objection to my modification of Item number 1 – Accessory Structures was, “how can we ensure people obey the set back requirements if we do not require permits?”

My Response:
If enforcing setback lines for acessory structures rather than the home itself, many homes and lots in Lula would not have any room to build ANYTHING in the back yard due to set back requirements.

Without permits, the City of Lula is not responsible or incurs liability for violating any stated distance limitations. But, if someone builds over any particular distance from the lot line, (i.e. 5ft like Hall County requires) then a neighbor who objects to such a thing should try talking to their neighbor first to move the building. If that does not work, they can call the City of Lula Codes Enforcement to evaluate it, then the municiple court can try to get the neighbor to move the storage building using tools such as fines and limited jail time (both of which are remedies provided to the Muni court system in Georgia, however, be advised GA sets the maximum limit on fines to $1000.) But the most effective means to get a neighbor to comply with the wishes of the offended neighbor is to file a suit in the Superior court of Hall or Banks County, which can then utilize injunction powers to force the movement or removal of the building through court orders, contempt of court, judgements and liens that can be placed on the property that will prevent the owner from selling or even refinancing the property without satisfying the judgement of the court.

OBJECTION 2: “What about a new home buyer who buys a house next to one of these that may be over the set back or 5 foot line?”

My Response:
That is the responsibility of the potential buyer. If someone is buying a home, it is their responsibility to look at the house and if there is anything they disapprove of (including the view of a storage shed next door) they should include that in their decision whether to buy the property or not. While this type of situation ould normally not be considered in a Home Inspection, it certain follows the same logic that the buyer should be aware of what they are getting before making the purchase.

OBJECTION 3:
When those objections were addressed, they came with this one…
“The state of Georgia passed a law that says all structures must be anchored to the ground. If we don’t require permits, then we can’t verify if they properly anchored the shed.”

Some have gone on to repeat an argument that other staff have suggested that, “if a storm comes through and blows the shed next door onto little Johnny, no one’s home owner’s insurance will cover that since it is an act of God”.

My Response:
While I agree that would be a tragedy, there are several dangers that are beyond our control. Whose to say that while the shed was anchored, that the wind with the force to lift that shed would not have lifted and thrown a dog house, trash can, umbrella, picnic table, etc. that goes flying through the air with the same potential to injure people? Where do you draw the line? What is practical? Why does the State of Florida not require this since they have so many hurricanes?

Please note that every person who has cited that law to me as a reason for requiring permits, has been unable to produce that law. More importantly, that is a misinterpretation of the law. The law they are referring to was introduced to address ‘Tiny Homes’ as builders were claiming they were exempt from the laws enacted for mobile homes and modular homes,” which do require anchoring. That law covers OCCUPIED DWELLINGS, not storage buildings. Remember, if a storage building is on a concrete pad, it DOES require a permit as that is a permanent foundation.

OBJECTION 4: Related to Decks
“Not every home owner is qualified to build a deck.  They are going to throw parties on these decks and too many people are going to caue it to collapse and people are going to get hurt.”

My Response:
Well, I am shocked that some council members think so little of the citizens, they believe we cannot even take some lumber and build a deck.  Keep in mind it is still up to the home owner to hire someone to build a deck for them if they would like, but passing this ordinance reduces the cost of building that deck by not requiring them to pay for a permit and various inspections.  entire

The decks that would meet this criteria, are anywhere from 4 inches to 30 inches off the ground.  It is worth noting that even decks that are permitted AND attached to one’s home  that are 30 inches off the ground DO NOT REQUIRE A HAND RAIL.  So if they were afraid people might hurt themselves by accidentally falling 30 inches, perhaps they should tell the entire country and the rest of the world they are WRONG. Make no mistake, people can hurt themseleves by falling 30 inches, but people can also hurt themselves tripping on a flat surface.

Those in defense of requiring permits seem to be “grasping at straws” each time a logic and common sense provide an answer to their objections.

So What is the motivation for requiring permits?

What is the motivation? While those who wish to require permits may claim it is about safety, the ICC found not safety concerns that would warrant the need for a permit.

Some have stated other possible motivations to require permits such as:

1. Do they just like having power over their neighbors?
2. Do they enjoy dictating to everyone else what they can do so they can control what they see when they look out their back yard?
3. Did they just not want to pay or couldn’t pay the costs to live in an HOA where architectural review boards are common?
4. Do they just want the controlling aspects of an HOA but don’t like having to pay dues to be in such a community.
5. Is it just about money?

Regarding number 5, The City of Lula does outsource the services of a building inspector. This building inspector maintains excellent credentials and training with the ICC. I support the outsourcing of this function as it only causes the financial burden to fall to the person buidling a stucture requiring a permit and the portion of the permit fee for inspections is passed on by the city to the inspector. But the permit also includes additional fees to support the administrative costs for filing and keeping the paperwork for the permits and even visually inspecting the location of the work being performed. Keep in mind, that if the city decides not to require a permit for the 10 items, then there is no financial burden for the city to bear at all.

Have a Happy Independence day. And remember, you only have independence until you waive your right to have it to someone else.