• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

How many inspections should be required on SFD's? Insulation inspection?

We do insulation and a veneer inspection. Veneer looks at braced walls, window/door flashing, house wrap, treated band board (if deck or landing is coming), and u-factor for windows. At insulation we also check for air barrier behind tubs and fire blocking etc. No roof inspection here and no footer. (3rd party inspected only)

I may miss one but....

foundation

projection

waterproofing/damp proofing

slab/monolithic

elec, plumb. and mech. rough in

electrical release of service

veneer

framing

insulation

water line/sewer line

all individual finals
 
I noticed most of you have made no mention at all to concrete / masonry inspections save for floors and foundation.

In 5 years I have only seen a half a dozen wood frame homes here in SW Florida. Are block homes not common anywhere else?
 
Bryan--I have actively built in NC, FL and NM over the past 30+ years and traveled about quite a bit. Only in FL have I seen the concrete block houses with tie beams.
 
Here's what we do:

Batter Board for set back compliance

Plumbing Rough

Foundation

Sheathing Inspection

Electrical Rough

Plumbing Top Out

HVAC Rough

Framing

Window Flashing & Brick Tie

Insulation

Electrical Panel for Temporary power

Building Final

Plumbing Final

Electrical Final

HVAC Final

Insulation Final

Drainage
 
Mule: Looks to me like you have the bases covered. We incorporate the drainage inspection at the final, but I need to add an insulation, sheathing, and window flashing & brick tie inspection to fill the gaps in our program.

With building having slowed down, it is a good time to incorporate changes.
 
Mule reminded me of a district I used to build in that required a survey before you were allowed to start anything above grade (similar to his batter board check though you could pour trench footings in advance). It is a great idea because if people start the construction and find they don't comply with a set back, they ask for a variance and they are often given as governing officials are reluctant to make someone go to great expense in order to comply unless they are way off. If there are walls, fences, driveways, etc. they should also be on a required final survey before giving a CO. I had a neighbor put up a wall and encroached on my property (they were finishing their house just as I was starting mine). Though the wall was part of the permitted improvements, they had been granted a CO and the municipality basically told me, "sorry, it's between you and your neighbor as we now can't really do anything". The muncipality had permitted, inspected and issued a CO and now I had an encroachment that prevented me from moving forward with my construction until I got it resolved. They literally forced me into a dispute with my neighbor by not requiring a final survey. Later on getting a final survey with all improvements shown did become a part of getting a CO.
 
Bryan:

Here in California concrete block requires special inspection, is that just a UBC thing? If it is it survived in the current IBC based code. I took a vacation in Florida in 1969 and couldn't believe all the block construction, even mid-rise buildings that could never be built in block here. I commented about it to a woman in the hotel and she said yeah, it was terrible, here shoe soles got moldy sitting in her closet.
 
Robert reminded me of a something that is a part of our footing inspection. We require what we call a "form board survey" verification by a land surveryor that the foundation location will conform to required setbacks must be in the job permit box when the inspection is made or the inspector will not pass the foundation inspection.
 
Robert:

We check setbacks at the footing inspection.

On the fence issue, we do not survey, or require a final survey with improvements shown. If someone builds any structure on your property, that structure becomes your property to do with as you see fit. It is the neighbor or the neighbor's hire that caused the dispute, not the ahj.

Why add to the bureaucracy and expense involved in building every home to address rare exceptions? Unless one is very careful, making a new law to address a rare exception

defines bad government.
 
Bryan Holland said:
I noticed most of you have made no mention at all to concrete / masonry inspections save for floors and foundation. In 5 years I have only seen a half a dozen wood frame homes here in SW Florida. Are block homes not common anywhere else?
Special inspection required for block homes here.
 
Jobsaver--requiring a final survey be submitted does not create any additional work at all for the AHJ--it is letting the property owner provide proper documentation that the permitted improvements are placed in the right place. Some places require setbacks for fences and drive edges as well.

And, my memory was jogged for one more document. If it is being built in a FEMA special flood hazard zone, there is a required elevation certificate to document it is being built high enough. I know of one where the builder started the framing and had misread his survey stick leaving the foundation 1' lower than what was required.
 
Robert:

We are the Flood Plain Administrator for our area and also require an as-built elevation certificate in this circumstance. It is the law and a good one that protects people from buying a home that might otherwise become useless.

My rant concerning "requiring" an as-built survey for every home has nothing to do with exertion on the part of the ahj. To require it simply adds cost and bureaucracy, unnecessarily, to the process for everyone building a home. Problems with encroaching fences or driveways do not cause a situation where one's home becomes useless, and, already have remedy under other provisions in the law. Why encumber the building process?
 
Jobsaver--We'll have to agree to disagree on the survey issue. I would normally agree that adding more cost and burdens should be avoided. However, these are items that are usually close to if not right against a property line and those locations are often difficult for anyone but a surveyor to determine. Perhaps it is because you see if from a government administration viewpoint and my experience in this case was as a homeowner who had 2 extremely difficult situations--my lender and my neighbor. But I will add this, if you aren't going to require verification that some of the improvements are where they are supposed to be, you shouldn't require permitting for them. If a jurisdiction has setback requirements and you have to document the house is in the right location, this is exactly the same issue.
 
Prior to issuance of a permit per State requirements

Stormwater management/erosion control measures where applicable (can be combined with above)

Prior to pouring footings - verify soil conditions, form placement, reinforcement where applicable

Prior to pouring walls - verify adequacy of forms, reinforcement where applicable

Underslab utilities - plumbing test, any other underslab installs

Prior to pouring slab - stone, poly and WWM

Prior to backfill - verify drain, cover, material to be used

Framing

Ice and water shield

Rough plumbing

Rough electrical

Rough HVAC

House wrap

Insulation/firestopping

Final

If responsible for septic system inspection, add at least 2 more. One for components installed and exposed, one for covered and graded.

I always encourage homeowners and contractors to call any time they want something inspected, weather it's on the list or not. Few have ever become pests about it, but occasionally a homeowner gets reassurance about the work by having an extra inspection or two.
 
Robert Ellenberg said:
Jobsaver--We'll have to agree to disagree on the survey issue. I would normally agree that adding more cost and burdens should be avoided. However, these are items that are usually close to if not right against a property line and those locations are often difficult for anyone but a surveyor to determine. Perhaps it is because you see if from a government administration viewpoint and my experience in this case was as a homeowner who had 2 extremely difficult situations--my lender and my neighbor. But I will add this, if you aren't going to require verification that some of the improvements are where they are supposed to be, you shouldn't require permitting for them. If a jurisdiction has setback requirements and you have to document the house is in the right location, this is exactly the same issue.
Robert: I am happy to agree to disagree . . . just ask my ex's!

Historically, I have been involved in my ahj on three fence location disputes and one driveway dispute. And, in these four cases, my involvement probably did help expedite resolving the issues more quickly than otherwise might have happened . . . just by virtue of having a working relationship with the people involved.

Still, these are four cases in ten years on the job.

In my ahj, we will continue to sell $20 fence building permits. And, we will continue to go out and attempt to ensure that all proposed fences will ultimately meet Zoning restrictions.

What we will not do, or rather, what I will not do for as long as I can, is create a new rule that will require a survey that will result forevermore in that $20 permit costing $275 for every citizen in my community that wants to legally build a fence.

Anyway, Anywho, Anyhow . . . I sure do appreciate all of your excellent posts in these threads.
 
Jobsaver--Thanks for the respectful response. It got me to thinking of a workable compromise. Do you think the following requirements would be reasonable? Require that permit applications (including plat plan for a new house) show all improvements including proposed fences and driveways. My personal opinion is that if it is scaled and shows setbacks that anyone can draw that plan, doesn't have to be a surveyor. But for the CO, require that all hardscape improvements be in place and that all properly corners be exposed and flagged clearly so that the inspector can visually ascertain that the improvements are within in the property boundaries and appear to be set back as proposed (eyeball it).
 
This might work. Establishing the setbacks for the footing location at the beginning of a job does, of course, depend on those pins. Pins are generally visable, and as of yet undisturbed.

But preserving the corner pin visability to the end of a job or re-establishing it would be difficult for somebody. It would often require digging, and in some cases, a new survey.

There are already many competing forces at work at the point of completing a home, building, or project, including fences, landscaping, . . . closing dates . . . expired leases . . . moving schedules . . . etc. I can't see holding up a closing because either a builder or homebuyer has not started, or completed a fence. For that matter, I can't see holding up a closing, (C/O), even if a fence is built on the wrong property. Too many things getting held up by government at a time when most parties are concerned with more pressing matters. No life safety issue. Can be resolved later, or, in emergencies, immediately by whoever owns the property, (tear it down and sue for expenses). Depends a little on what kind of neighbor you want to be.

Also, many fences are established within a few weeks, months, or years after a C/O for a home is issued.

Most fences established here are probably off a few inches, and sometimes a foot or so. Most people will acknowledge the fact and accept the discrepancy.

Everywhere I have personally lived in town, fences have existed between my property and my neighbor's property. Before much time at all passed, it would casually become established whose property the fence was on, and, who actually owned the fence. Then, we turn our focus to the overhanging branches above and consider who owns the trees. Go fiqure?
 
That's why we require the pins be exposed, footing forms set, and stringlines set at property lines, so we can verify compliance with structure setbacks at the very beginning. We will recheck if needed at foundation inspection if necessary. After that, unless something gets added to the structure that wasn't on the approved site plan, as in a deck or cantilever, we are done with setbacks. After we issue a C.O., it is the property owner(s) problem(s).
 
That's why we require the pins
be careful of that "offset" pin that is somtime used. Happened to us. Offset pins where installed throughout the subdivision because the utility easement was very narrow and someone thought the corner pins would be removed during utility line installations. Hence a couple of homes where built within the setbacks.
 
yeah, we have had a couple of those, one we had to measure from the midlle of the street to ID the offset pin, now it is just institutional knowledge, hopefully someone is still here when housing takes off.
 
We require a permit plat with location of proposed work and proposed top of foundation elevation. We require a foundation plat showing actual location and TOF be submitted after the foundation is complete or no roughs. We require a final as-built survey with all improvements shown and distances to all lot lines.

Have not seen many fences built with the house. Having that as-built in the file really helps.
 
Top