"But, I would check with building inspectors to see if this roof meets code,"

SwamperGator gets it right again.....

ChuckJ If you do any of the above do "building inspectors"

They will get you on your way to a great project...............

Thanks, Scooter,for the support.  I could just envision standing in the room with the drop ceiling removed, no ceiling joists, a hollow roof with unsupported rafters going up the ridgepole, with decking on the topside to turn the water.  When I got to thinking about that, looked at his location and realized he is in the occasional hurricane zone, so I would want an inspector to tell me if it met code.  Then I would ask the inspector to tell me if I could use 2" X 8" ceiling joist with supports upward to the ridgepole and rafters secured with grids to unitize them.  Then install the ceiling.  JMHO. 

The house was built in the mid 70's. I am not touching the roof or any of it's support structure. There is a central support post (8 X 6 I think) in the middle of the house. It runs from the slab floor to a central support girder

Got any pictures?

I could be wrong but anytime you mess with a loadbering structure i.e., ceiling or roof joist, you will need a permit. And as all of the excellent advice I read here, you no doubt will need the expertise of an inspector. A couple written estemates from local contractors wouldn't hurt... The ceiling grid is an excellent choice but it is only as good as what it is fastened to... Sam

Posted By KnuckleDragginSam on 07-19-2011 04:18 PM
I could be wrong but anytime you mess with a loadbering structure i.e., ceiling or roof joist, you will need a permit. And as all of the excellent advice I read here, you no doubt will need the expertise of an inspector. A couple written estemates from local contractors wouldn't hurt... The ceiling grid is an excellent choice but it is only as good as what it is fastened to... Sam

   What Sam said wouldn't hurt.

      May pick up a tip or two.....................

Good points, gents.  Thanks for bringing that up. 

I appreciate the concern, but I am not touching any load bearing structure. I am adding framing where no framing previously existed. Nothing is being removed except the metal track that held up a drop ceiling. The roof and framing was inspected when it was built and has stood for the last 40 years. I am simply building an interior wall to cut a room in half and adding ceiling joist on top of the new wall to hang drywall from it.

Simply a dividing wall,capped with a ceiling below the existing roof structure. Only attachment to the existing building is to the outer walls and floor as I see it. Even so, getting an inspector is wise. I don't see a problem with the roof, but the inspector may want to know if the floor will support the new wall and ceiling.

I Don't know but in this case I would probably forego the inspector although I normally am one to say check with the building inspector for just about everything one can think of. I could be wrong, so do what you think is best.


Wolf

Wolf, I've got to admit that over the years, to save a lot of expence for inspectors fees and building permits. I've done a lot of work under cover on my home. If the insurance company didn't enter your home when you got your insurance, they have no cause to deny coverage since they provided the insurance without restrictions, except for those specifically stated in the contract. These might include things like Wood Burning Stoves, Firewall between home and attached garages. That said though, If you build something without required permits, the inspector could require you to remove everything you've done. A contractor came into town and got permits to build 2 homes.Once he started, he bypassed a lot of required inspections. The homes were found to be located 2' forward of the setback requirements. He tried to get the town to allow the homes to stay, and then asked to be allowed to move them back. Because he so blatantly bypassed inspections, he was finally required to tear down both buildings.
Bypassing local requirements can be risky.

Posted By cedar on 07-21-2011 01:51 PM
Wolf, I've got to admit that over the years, to save a lot of expence for inspectors fees and building permits. I've done a lot of work under cover on my home. If the insurance company didn't enter your home when you got your insurance, they have no cause to deny coverage since they provided the insurance without restrictions, except for those specifically stated in the contract. These might include things like Wood Burning Stoves, Firewall between home and attached garages. That said though, If you build something without required permits, the inspector could require you to remove everything you've done. A contractor came into town and got permits to build 2 homes.Once he started, he bypassed a lot of required inspections. The homes were found to be located 2' forward of the setback requirements. He tried to get the town to allow the homes to stay, and then asked to be allowed to move them back. Because he so blatantly bypassed inspections, he was finally required to tear down both buildings.
Bypassing local requirements can be risky.

Insurance repairs to damaged homes are based upon the description of the property held by the city/county (what they use to determine property taxes) or what is on the closing paperwork.  What the claim agent sees when he/she comes to the home after a claim is made is bounced against these.

Most insurance companies do not check the structure themselves.  What they insure is what you tell them you have when you obtain the coverage.  Number of baths/baths, other rooms, attached/detached garage, pool, fire place, etxerior building(s), etc., and the $ value of personal property.

Changes such as floor covering, adding paneling/wainscot, higher grade cabinets, etc. aren't held by the city and will either be replaced or you'll receive compensation (a fraction of the value) for the building material.

I was not suggesting that one should not at least meet code on any work performed or to bypass the inspector where it is required but if the work did not require a permit or inspection than to go ahead with the work providing that it would meet or exceed code. However the insurance issue is one that I was unaware of. I stand corrected, and thank you for this info.


Wolf