DOME MAGAZINE: Summer 1997, Vol. 9| No. 3
Do you believe that building your own dome home, as an owner/builder, is a piece of cake? Then you will probably have a different opinion when you read this.
This is not written to discourage you from entering into a do-it-yourself construction project, but to try to identify some of the pitfalls that show up along the way, as well as to point out the good things that occur from building you own dream home. The builder in this story is an owner-builder, and to further complicate the situation, is a woman.
Now how can these two single features be of any real problem in getting a home built almost anywhere in these United States in this day and age? We supposedly live in a free country, but try being a woman owner/builder and try building an energy-efficient dream home in Clear Creek County, Colorado.
Karen’s Story
I have selected this particular story because it represents a worst case scenario in building your own dream dome home.
Let’s look at the log. After investigating and studying dome homes for a long time (actually ten years), Karen decided to proceed. She already owned the land, located at about 7,500 feet altitude on the edge of a beautiful mountain stream about 30 miles west of Denver.
Selecting the manufacturer and the size of the structure were the first decisions that had to be made. To make certain that there were no limiting codes regarding the building of domes, we called on the building inspector. This was in the fall of 1988. He told us that no problem existed regarding codes that the dome would not meet. His only comment was that the plans that were to be submitted must be stamped by an architect or structural engineer who was a resident of the state of Colorado. Incidentally, several other states have since adopted this strategy.
The plan details that were drawn for this project were already stamped by a certified structural engineer who had a license to practice in the state of Colorado, but was a resident of another state. So why must the plans be stamped by a resident engineer? The answer to that question is obvious.
This little ruse gives the local professionals an opportunity to get a piece of the action on every residential home that is built in that state. This type of activity by the profession adds to the already too high cost of residential housing, since it takes unnecessary money from the home builder and can be further characterized as professional thievery.
So the builder was required to seek out and pay additional costs to have the plans stamped by a local engineer. The plans were then copied and stamped by an engineer residing in the state of Colorado and submitted to the local building inspector for rejection or approval at an added cost to the owner-builder. Nothing was changed but the certification. The permit was then issued by the county.
Since the dome was to be built on an area of a relatively high water table, the design called for a three-foot permanent wood foundation resting on an eight-inch crushed rock footing. The plans were submitted to the local Clear Creek Building Department in early 1989. The plans were signed by the building inspector, who, incidentally, was not the inspector with whom we had originally talked, and copies were returned to the owner, along with the building permit.
Subsequently, before the builder had an opportunity to install the foundation, the building inspector showed up at the site and stopped the project from proceeding. He told the builder that he would only allow concrete footings. He said that he had not signed off on the plans that, incidentally, clearly showed a permanent wood foundation, and that he would not let her build her dome on that type of wood foundation.
The standard recommended footing for a permanent wood foundation is eight-inch crushed rock. He claimed that he had never signed his name to the plans and that his name had been forged on the permit, none of which was true. This delayed her building the foundation for several months until she fought through the bureaucracy and finally was allowed to proceed, using the permanent wood foundation that was provided with the kit. This delay of several months meant that the dome shell that had been delivered in July of 1989 would not be erected until the late fall of 1989.
The foundation and the floor system had been completed and the dome shell was ready for installation. On a Saturday morning in early November, she and several of her friends began erecting the 40-foot diameter, high profile, 3V dome kit on a one-foot riser wall.
By evening the total dome framework was erected. The next day, the panels were being installed by the owner-builder and the same volunteer crew. About one-half of the panels were installed before nightfall. The remaining panels were installed by the owner. The only tools required besides the scaffold were a half-inch socket, a three-eighths-inch ratchet and a hammer.
One would think that since all requirements for building the dome had been met, plans completed and properly stamped, the building permit issued and the dome shell erected that it should also follow that no future problems would be expected. Wrong! The building was shingled and all exterior doors and windows had been installed. The next phase was the installation of the interior walls and second floor system. What happens? Said building inspector appeared on the site without permission, or without the builder asking for an inspection because the framing was not completed. He immediately red-tagged the project, his reasoning being that the building did not meet engineering requirements. This, is spite of the fact that the plans had been certified by a local structural engineer and had been previously approved by this same building inspector when the permit was issued. The structure had been built exactly according to the
plan. In the ensuing time, he suggested that she might not have had such a bad time if she were not a woman.
This delayed the construction for the several weeks that it took to get the permit reissued. This delay cost the builder not only valuable time, but the added expense of a lawyer and additional expense of professional engineering advice. When the smoke cleared away, a new permit was issued and the construction was allowed to continue. Absolutely no changes were made in the original construction project. But, once again, valuable time and money had been lost.
A Tale of Irony
The irony of this situation is that the dome structure itself is not only the strongest architectural form, but its fourteen-and-a-half-inch thick walls with twelve inches of insulation make it the most energy efficient structure available for home construction.
All over the local county area this same inspection was being made on the square house builders’ projects and not causing one moment’s loss in time. The culprit in this situation is not only a bias against women in the construction field, but a real ignorance of contemporary construction designs and thought. For this, at least in the latter instance, we, as dome manufacturers and builders, must take some of the blame.
We have hidden our light under a bushel long enough. We must collectively make our voices heard in the marketplace to avoid similar situations as much as possible.
It is clear that this particular building inspector knew absolutely nothing about dome engineering and design and that ignorance was transferred negatively to the builder’s bank account.
As I have stated before, we, who are the vanguard of dome philosophy, must collectively find a way to combat the housing industry’s negative propaganda. Dome homes represent the ultimate competition to the square house industry. Rest assured that that industry is doing everything possible to harass and thwart the dedicated dome builder. This is just one instance.
Since I have appealed in past articles for comment and possible solutions from the dome industry on this particular problem, and to date the response has been minimal, I must assume that there is little interest relating to this subject.
Let me assure you that all building inspectors are not as uncooperative as is the person in this case. In fact, most of the inspection that we have encountered in the past sixteen years has been very helpful. As I stated before, this episode represents a “worse case” scenario.
This saga ends happily as this Colorado dome builder is finally getting to the end of her trial by fire. The satisfaction of overcoming these tribulations and having her own owner-built dome home make up in part for all of the roadblocks that were placed along the way.
Dome builders are a stubborn lot, and it takes great determination to deter them from their dreams.