Jump to content

Deck attachment to mobile


Recommended Posts

It all depends on whether the home is classified as REAL or PERSONEL Property. REAL property meets the HUD manufactured home "Permananent Foundation Guide - Sept 1996".

If the manufacture home has been placed on a permanent foundation (As define by the HUD "Permananent Foundation Guide - Sept 1996") then Yes for the attachment. The attached deck live and dead load is transfered to the permanent foundation.

If the manufacture home does not meet the HUD Sept 1996 Standards then I would say NO, it would have to be self supporting. The joists are already cantileving over the chassis beams by 3' and when you add the extra dead load of the deck and live load of people on the deck, I believe that you would exceed the load reguirements of the manufacture home floor joist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Disagree.

Every manufactured home that I've seen has had a long double backbone chassis with steel web supports perpendicular to the backbone like fishbones along a fishes spine. On top of that, are 2 by 6 or 2 by 8 stringers running the full length of the structure - the band, or rim, joist being one of these.

The actual amount being supported by the rim joist isn't more than about 4 or 5 feet before there is an intermediate post and beam supporting the deck. As long as it is properly flashed to keep out water and properly bolted to the rim joist, I don't see where attaching a deck to it will be an issue.

Will they have to detach it if they move the home? Sure, but 99% of these, at least around here, are never moved and the decks rot out long before the structures do anyway. Around here, I see carports attached directly to the sides of these structures, supplemental laundry and storage rooms and all sorts of add-ons.

I haven't seen any of these cause any issue that wasn't water infiltration or rot related in nearly 10 years and every one of those issues could have been avoided if the person attaching the supplemental structure had paid attention to how the supplemental structure was attached and had flashed the transition properly.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike

I don't see what you are disagreeing over. The deck design that you describe "The actual amount being supported by the rim joist isn't more than about 4 or 5 feet before there is an intermediate post and beam supporting the deck. As long as it is properly flashed to keep out water and properly bolted to the rim joist, I don't see where attaching a deck to it will be an issue."

The deck design that you discribe is not attached directly to the manufactured home but is being supported by the intermediate post and beam that is anchor to the rim joist, which the deck is attached too.

The question was "Does anybody know if attachment of a deck directly to a mobile home is allowed? [My answer is Yes and No] Do the decks have to be absolutely self supporting? [My answer is Yes and No]

Link to post
Share on other sites

No,

That is not what I described. I described a ledger attached directly to the rim joist at the side of the structure. The ledger being flashed and protected with joist hangers hanging off the ledger. That ledger being the only support inboard. Then, about 4 or 5 feet from there, depending on whether it is an 8ft. deep deck or a 10ft. deep deck, a line of posts with a transverse beam supporting those joists at mid-span. Finally, another beam and posts at the outboard end.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for the question: 3 years and 7 months ago I inspected a large doublewide with a large back deck addition. The deck was well constructed and low to the ground, plenty of support and sturdy, no visible damage to the home which I stated in my report. The buyers are now selling and the new buyers hired a home inspector who stated in his report that the deck should not attached to the structure. Sellers and realtor are making noises that I should be the one to pay for repairs as this was not in my report. The main problem is that no permit or inspections were obtained for the deck construction. The town agrees with the second inspector that the deck should not be attached and quoted me IBC (this was today)

"Section ae504 Structural additions

ae504.1 General. Accessory buildings shall not be structurally supported by or attached to a

manufactured home unless engineering calculations are submitted to substantiate any proposed structural connection.

Exception: The building official may waive the submission of engineering calculations if it is

found that the nature of the work applied for is such that engineering calculations are not

necessary to show conformance to these provisions."

I indicated to the realtor that I do not do a code inspection, that is stated in the report and inspection agreement and am concerned with structural soundness and safety. In addition, I am not responsible for researching permits. My assumption was that permits were obtained and the deck was passed.

I am not sure how else to handle this, new buyer is demanding that a perfectly sound deck be "repaired" and the seller is justifiably upset that they have to do this.

I don't know if it makes any difference, but in 1997 when the deck was constructed, they were going by 1997 UBC (i don't have that book, don't know if it even adresses manufactured housing).

Anybody see any liability on my part? i want to handle this fairly but don't want to get screwed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't think you have any liability there, not in the circumstances as you describe them. It wasn't a code inspection and your agreement and report said so, even if you were looking for whatever code violations you knew about. There apparently was and still is no actual problem with the deck or the double wide.

Section ae504 Structural additions

ae504.1 General. Accessory buildings shall not be structurally supported by or attached to a

manufactured home unless engineering calculations are submitted to substantiate any proposed structural connection.

Exception: The building official may waive the submission of engineering calculations if it is

found that the nature of the work applied for is such that engineering calculations are not

necessary to show conformance to these provisions.

To me this is one of those semi-silly CYA provisions. "Not supported by" I can sort of understand, since people do goofy things sometimes that might really cause a problem, but a deck "attached to" but not "supported by" a mobile home is an improvement in my book. I think it makes both more stable. My old single wide has been sitting in the same spot for a good 20 years now. It was never tied down until this year, yet it sailed right through 3 or 4 of the worst storms in this area in my father's lifetime without a twitch. It did however have a carport, a 30' long front porch, and a laundry room attached. None are "supported by"; all are "attached to".

When I read that code section I hear it saying "This isn't okay, you need an engineer...um, unless we say it's okay, even though we aren't engineers." [:-irked]

Since the building official can waive it if he wants to, I'd try for that first if I were the seller. If not, having an engineer okay it might still be cheaper than the "repair". Just thinking out loud.

Brian G.

Former Trailer Trash [:-paperba

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homnspector,

ae504.1 General. Accessory buildings shall not be structurally supported by or attached to a

manufactured home. Is a deck classified as a "ACCESSORY BUILDING" by this code? If it is it's a new one on me. Email me with your telephone number and I will talk to you directly.

The HI might have known about the manufacture's 10 year warranty on the structual system (Most read, No attachment's to structure) Most of the time it means a garage, room addition, some patio's.

Mike,

The system you just describe is a supported deck system. Remove the joists hangers and you deck will still stand. Now if you removed the mid-span support and had it hanging off the joists hangers (which are attach) and supported by the outboard end this whould be a directly attached system to the manufactured home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"ae504.1 General. Accessory buildings shall not be structurally supported by or attached to a manufactured home"

Is a deck really an accessory building? If the home inspector and building official are considering the deck a "building", would they flag a set of steps attached to the structure as well? Tough spot to be in Homn.

Joe, that would make a great little vacation cottage. I couldn't build one for that price. I would seriously consider it if they would deliver from CA. I can't rest until I have a home with an "observation lounge". My wife wouldn't set foot in it though. The summer before going away to school, I lived in a '68 Econoline with mushrooms painted all over it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of it too.

Homnspector

I looked in by 2003 IBC Code book and could not find "Section ae504 Structural additions, also try finding the definition for "Accessory buildings" in the UBC and IBC, nothing. Have this AHJ show you the Section and the definition for "Accessory building".

A lot of jurisdictions still do not require a permit for decks and for Manufacture Homes they leave that up to the State Division of Manufactured Homes to Inspect not the local jurisdiction because of that "Real" and "Personel Property" classification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Monte, I will take you up on that.

My mistake, it is the IRC, not IBC

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. In one- and two-family dwellings

not more than three stories high with separate means of

egress, a building, the use of which is incidental to that of the

main building and which is located on the same lot.

Doesn't sound like a deck to me.

I can't say if the deck would stand without the attachment, I am thinking probably not. I really don't want to go look at it.

Does anybody know if the 1997 UBC addresses manufactured housing? I hate to buy it to look this up.

The realtor mentioned $5000 to "repair" the deck. This is sounding more like a shakedown. They could put the home on a permamant foundation for that much $$ and not worry about the deck attachment.

Is there a statute of limitations on this sort of thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by homnspector

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. In one- and two-family dwellings

not more than three stories high with separate means of

egress, a building, the use of which is incidental to that of the

main building and which is located on the same lot.

Doesn't sound like a deck to me.

Me either. I think that's way to much of a reach to hold up.

The realtor mentioned $5000 to "repair" the deck. This is sounding more like a shakedown.

$5000? That's a lot to repair something that isn't broken.

Is there a statute of limitations on this sort of thing?

That's gonna vary from state to state. Here it's 3 years. In AZ I don't know. Call someone on the state board, I'll bet they can tell you off the top of their head.

I doubt if they can do anything with this but bluff anyway. Fax them a copy of the code stuff with a note saying "A deck is not a building, I don't do code inspections anyway, and I won't be paying"...more or less.

Brian G.

You Call, They Fold, Case Closed [:-weepn]

Link to post
Share on other sites

homnspec,

Can't help you w/UBC, but our state(GA)rides herd on all man. home installations. It licenses all installers, makes 'em buy state permits as well as local.

Here, decks may be attached but must not rely on the building for support. They must be self-supporting. Sounds like "repair" of subject deck would be a matter of adding a few posts or piers anchored to some decent spot footings, but nothing like a 5K job.

Seller doesn't understand that your inspection wasn't a warranty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...