• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

An average day

e hilton said:
Whats the purpose of the strap across the ridge? It would be nice if the nails were oroperly set before installing the shingles.
Click to expand...
Well I reckon that strap keeps the rafters held against the ridge board. Maybe it gives the roof diaphragm a bit more omf. I really don't know exactly. The roof covering will be tile so they won't show through and the usual strap is an ST 24 which is smaller than an MST48.

The building is small.....hardly big enough to have bothered...it’s not more than eight feet wide with a strong wall at the gable end. So that MST strap almost seemed okay.

Mighty small or is it small but mighty. It’s a two bed, two bath ADU. The main house is seven bedrooms with six bathrooms. This is in a 70s tract of 2000 sq ft homes. The owner can’t understand why the neighbors are upset.
 
Last edited:
9 Br / 8 Ba ... multifamily? Extended family? Air bnb? Where are they gping to park all the cars. Are there zoning restrictions on maximum structure per sf of land?
 
ICE said:
Well I reckon that strap keeps the rafters held against the ridge board. Maybe it gives the roof diaphragm a bit more omf. I really don't know exactly. The roof covering will be tile so they won't show through and the usual strap is an ST 24 which is smaller than an MST48.

The building is small.....hardly big enough to have bothered...it’s not more than eight feet wide with a strong wall at the gable end. So that MST strap almost seemed okay.

Mighty small or is it small but mighty. It’s a two bed, two bath ADU. The main house is seven bedrooms with six bathrooms. This is in a 70s tract of 2000 sq ft homes. The owner can’t understand why the neighbors are upset.
Click to expand...
Ty J. said:
They may be required per 802.3.1 given certain methods of traditional stick framing. Also see Figure R802.5.1.
Click to expand...
 
Keystone said:
I recall this same issue in Philadelphia, Pa.

It's electric
Boogie Oogie Oogie.
Click to expand...

It seems odd that the electricity wasn't turned off. "Don't touch our poles 'cause that might kill you". A Public Service Announcement makes you look fat.
 
I was there for a PV inspection and while checking the smoke and co alarms I found this.

46097392745_7dd81a63b0_b.jpg

This is the finished product and has been this way for a long time. The craftsmanship is quite good.

46959426312_219522ef00_b.jpg
 
Impressive..........look at the smokes and CO's, and move on.

Maybe on the DL, advise that the installation is not compliant, for future use.
 
fatboy said:
Impressive..........look at the smokes and CO's, and move on.

Maybe on the DL, advise that the installation is not compliant, for future use.
Click to expand...
We would advise the owner/occupant that it does not meet code and what the safety risk is. We would also be very clear that we cannot force them to do anything, but if they choose to fix the problem, what the code would require.
 
Maybe the railings are at the fabricators? Would anyone allow temporary 2x4's to be installed if that's the case?
 
mtlogcabin said:
You sure can make them correct it under the IRC or IBC so what prohibits you from getting it corrected in Canada?
Click to expand...

(Amd) R102.7 Existing structures. The legal occupancy of any building or structure existing on
the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as
specifically covered in this code.

We would have to prove when it was built or modified to even begin to cite a violation...
 
The building has been altered and now has one or more serious life/safety violations. Now that the life/safety violation has become known, it is the duty of the building official to take action.

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs. Additions,
alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the
requirements for a new structure without requiring the
existing structure to comply with the requirements of this
code, unless otherwise stated. Additions, alterations,
repairs and relocations shall not cause an existing structure
to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of
the building.


R110.5 Revocation. The building official shall, in writing,
suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the
provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in
error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or
where it is determined that the building or structure or portion
thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of
the provisions of this code.
 
mtlogcabin said:
You sure can make them correct it under the IRC or IBC so what prohibits you from getting it corrected in Canada?
Click to expand...

It is a violation of that resident's charter rights. Unreasonable Search and Seizure. I am not there to inspect the whole house. I am there to inspect an element that has been required based on upgrades to the house. However, I would be negligent if I noted a glaring safety hazard and did not inform the occupant, so I must inform them.
 
There are no permits for anything after the original house was built except a 15'x20' family room, swimming pool and the recent service panel upgrade.
 
Rise. run and nosing meet code?
As far as carpet and tile you could say exempted from code requirements if that's all they have done. But if they did framing, electrical, HVAC and drywall work without permits and inspection.

Guardrails, railings and handrail big safety issues. This is where you guys that have your CBO certificates, (legal aspects of the code) should chime in and tell us what liability the inspector has in this situation when code violation(s) are noticed. Stair accidents are high on the list of residential safety issues and are up there with enforcing GFCI, AFCI and SD's.

This is always a problem for the inspector when everything's covered up. I feel for the inspector not the homeowner on a issue like this.
 
R101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, (invited guest into the home) health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

R110.5 Revocation.
The building official shall, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

It is very easy to determine when a home was constructed and if a building code was adopted at the time of construction.
 
mtlogcabin said:
R101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, (invited guest into the home) health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

R110.5 Revocation.
The building official shall, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

It is very easy to determine when a home was constructed and if a building code was adopted at the time of construction.
Click to expand...
The key is looking at charging legislation to see what gives you the authority to enter into a private residence, where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy, and inspect the building as a whole. Our legislation indicates that I am unable to inspect any other areas of the home, other than the upgrades required as part of the permit. The was termed as "piggy backing" in a superior court ruling and deemed a violation of the individual's charter rights. Your fourth amendment actually provides stronger protection from this than our charter rights.
 
Let's say you got to this location to do a PV inspection and there was no premise address, could you right that up or would that be considered a piggy back violation? Just curious on how far an inspector can go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top