Originally Posted by
H.G. Watson, Sr.
D. McB:
You blew yourself up with your "habital space" ratio argument. Habital space not the same as occupiable space vs. taxable/developed space.
Bathrooms, halls, garages and attics are not "habital" in the Calif building or zoning codes.
As for the rest of your ramblings, complaints, insults, excuses, illogical justifications as no singular extract of one aspect of the building codes in California stand alone, your arguments don't make your case they sink you.
One last word for D. McB on this topic: NUTS!!
Lee Birnbaum,
In re:
That's more than likely the Condo Association's Floor your jackhammering!
(are you sure your name isn't Gloria or Mihal?);)
In Condos it is not at all unusual, in fact it is rarely legal for the owner of a condo, especially one who is not an OCCUPANT (in residence) of a condo to be allowed to do, supervise, or contract out ANY plumbing work beyond swapping out a fixture or faucet, within the footprint of the actual owned "condo" especially not interconnecting, rerouting common elements or limited common elements so critical as building systems, potable plumbing, DWV, or something as risky as anything that might leak, overflow, or clog, especially below a floor surface, in a wall cavity beyond the "footprint" or if a chase within, one that also shares pathways to other units.
I'm surprised you're jackhammering anything, or moving fixture locations, adding a shower, etc. Adding demand (DFUs and demand - water to the branch and entire system) without their express approval that's their building - structure, systems, etc. its just your airspace and decor.
A licensed, permitted plumbing contractor that the condo works with, knows their entire SYSTEM (history of repairs/modifications/materials, engineering, and functioning, OR the condo's on-site maintenance engineer/staff was and is the usual modus. Many Condos will not allow anyone but their designee turn off or on a supply valve to a riser or individual unit branch. Most plumbing codes that allow an owner to work even on a free-standing single family residence as an exception to otherwise require a licensed plumber, usually do so only if owner occupied, and intending to remain so for a finite period of time beyond the completed project. Many states/locales also have similar provisos for work otherwise required to use a licensed electrician, for the owner/OCCUPANT exception, and allow "investor owners" only if they own the entire multifamily structure and reside in one of the units (owner/occupied). It likewise seems REASONABLE that a Condo Association would be less likely to "bend" their policies or rules for an investor "developer" or "remodeler" who has no intention of residing in the unit but looks to either flip it or be an offsite landlord and therefore will not personally experience the ramifications, should there be any (such as repair costs/fines down the road should there be problems - you and your plumber long gone) and "in their mind" you'd have less incentive to assure the "hidden" parts of your project are done not only minimally to code, but to the unique requirements of the building as a whole (including their experience with the demands upon the system). "They" may (:eek: ) require more than the Minimum "code", they're allowed to - those systems "belong" to "them".
Point being, I wouldn't be throwing stones at the condo board/association, on your many DIY flips/conversions/investor rennovation projects, for if "they" wanted to they could turn the tables on YOU. More and more such associations have and are adopting rules (some by mere rules adopted by the board and not requiring owners approval vote, some via bylaws or covenants requiring owners voting to approve) prohibiting "investor owners". More states' courts have supported those "new rules" even when not providing a "grandfather" to those units already purchased by "investors".