• 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

Sounds like an honest oversight. I would approve the sheathing inspection (assuming all else is right) and tell the contractor to call back and show a picture of the shingles on site before starting installation.
 
With virtual inspections there is a great deal of latitude built in. The contractor can take out a permit and finish the job before calling for any inspection. Then he requests a sheathing inspection....sends the pictures and passes sheathing inspection. He then requests a final inspection...sends the pictures and passes the final inspection.

The hope is that they can at least do the least.
 
So maybe the contractor has to wait on the Photomat to get his pictures before he can get them to you?

Next you'll want your hamburger hot when you pull up to the window!

You can't have it both ways, ICE:rolleyes:
 
I had a second request for a re-roof final inspection on 4-27-21. The following is a correction that I wrote on 4-20-21:

The sheathing inspection was scheduled on 4-16-21 with no response from the contractor. It is now 4-20-21 and a batch of pictures showing a completed roof has been sent. Missing is evidence that the sheathing passed inspection. The pictures of the shingle bundle show a material that is not listed on the permit. There is no picture of a pitch gauge and several pictures of the completed roof have not been included. There are pictures of shingle bundles resting on an existing rock roof. There is no video of the smoke and CO alarms.

All of this causes me to question if the pictures are of the correct project. I have included another copy of the re-roof guide and smoke alarm handout. Please follow the guide for providing pictures and a video.

Today the contractor explained that a confederate sent the wrong batch of pictures on 4-20-21. he went on the say that the guide that I sent is confusing to the point that he understood it to mean that a sheathing inspection is not required until the roofing has been installed. The knowledge that he is a roofer works in his favor....however, blaming his confusion on me does not help his case. It is difficult to get worked up over a re-roof, I must say,
 
The job is a re-roof.


Photo May 07, 11 24 11 AM.jpg


The vent is on the roof. They provided several pictures of the vent. I assume that the vent will be reused.

Photo May 07, 11 23 25 AM (1).jpg


And I was correct in my assumption. In their defense, the tile was reused and only the underlayment was replaced. But even with that.....

Photo May 12, 9 46 04 AM.jpg
 
Last edited:
The job is an electric service panel upgrade. This is supposedly a water pipe bond. Looks more like an ineffective gas pipe bond.


GetAttachmentThumbnail-18.jpg
 
Is that indoor panel installed outdoors? If so goes with using a Zinsco II (Eaton BR) panel, the rest does not look any better.
 
Solar entrepreneurs wish to pass inspection but are not willing to invest in that effort. The workman lack the tools and training required to succeed.


64391156371__699A47C7-E7D9-431D-80EE-8FFBA9C8BC60.jpeg


This is the only picture of the GEC connection to a water pipe. That is proof enough that I am not supposed to care.

20210528_162215179_iOS.jpeg
 
The meter is for an ADU. The ADU is a two story attached addition to the dwelling. The conduit wraps around the building for about 40' where it enters a wall and ends at a panel. That panel did not have a main disconnect and it did have a dozen circuits.

I wrote a correction that stated that there shall be a meter/main be installed rather than meter enclosure. My thinking was that the 40' of conductor between the meter and the panel requires over-current protection. But then I got to wondering about that and I could not find a code to back that up.

As it turns out, Edison will not allow a meter without a main breaker. So I was wrong and right at the same time.

20210427_090048.jpg

20210427_090056.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the NEC the SE conductors are on the outside of the building so they are OK, but am going to have to look that up to verify, but I have to agree with you, and be glad for some PoCo rules, I do not like unprotected conductors any longer then absolutely necessary. Also be glad PoCo rules do not allow SE cable.:eek::eek: They wasted a lot of money on 2" pipe when 1 1/4" is fine for 100A, not going to condemn them for the 2" mast since some PoCo's have a minimum size for a mast, SMUD (Sacramento area) has 1 1/2" minimum, PG&E is 1 1/4", assume that SCE is 2".

The install looks like crap, with the strut attached to the window trim, limited access to the LB cover, raking the nylon covering of the THWN as it was pulled, but that will fall off after being in the sun a while. The first set of pics show another install that won't win any awards either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top