Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think about this fireplace/woodstove? I don't have a photo of the inside, but the smoke basically goes straight up to the outside. My concern is how the actual wood burning is in front of the brick chimney (instead of inside it).
An insurance agent said it may be a problem. I'm waiting on an actual professional to come and check it out. House was built in 1969. Tentative closing date is Feb 15, but only if all is compliant (conventional loan).
This woodstove isn't very different in principle. The pipe elbows into the wall.
I think the agent is concerned about a propane set up illegally integrated with the woodburning. They mentioned a home where the owner jerry rigged a wood stove insert with out removing the propane lines etc that are originally made with the fire place.
Out here those have to be removed for loans and insurance as Oregon requires stoves that are not EPA certified to be removed. It is possible the insurance company is requiring EPA-certified wood stoves as well. Woodstoves that stand outside the brick are called "pot belly" or freestanding wood stoves and are normal.
I really don't know. There's lots of free standing stoves, wood, propane and pellet.... perfectly legit... but the elbow in the chimney? I don't know about that, for a wood stove. I have seen chimneys like that for pellet and gas.... not sure about wood. I would talk to a stove company, and the lender, and your insurance agent.
I think more than likely it would have to be removed. I don't think the original fireplace looked like this. If it is, it seems weird that they built it in front instead of inside.
The owner seems stubborn but I'll give an update when I find out. So far the owner needs to install step rails and possibly remove this thing. She was already unhappy about the low due diligent amount due to questions about the shared well that a judge supposedly ruled on.
As long as the stove doesn’t violate state laws for those things (many do now), most carriers will approve it from an insurance perspective, albeit with a possible surcharge.
As long as the stove doesn’t violate state laws for those things (many do now), most carriers will approve it from an insurance perspective, albeit with a possible surcharge.
I’d rip it out on the aesthetics alone though.
It's nice to have an auxiliary source of heat. I'd think it would be a LOT more efficient then an insert for heat.
There are prettier stoves though, perhaps an upgrade down the road.
It's nice to have an auxiliary source of heat. I'd think it would be a LOT more efficient then an insert for heat.
There are prettier stoves though, perhaps an upgrade down the road.
Very true. Having survived snowmageddon here in TX last winter, secondary heat sources were a big thing (or just generators).
If that wall heater is the primary source, I’d definitely look into a traditional fireplace build.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am amused that snowman posted about a fireplace
