• 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

Never know who is watching.....

No problem, you might have to refrence them hand-in-hand, some folks don't want to go any further after they reach the desired answer.
 
this is interesting. we don't perform sheathing nailing inspections ( wall) or roof sheathing inspections as part of our "rough frame" . nor do we do roofing inspections at final. nor do we do drywall nailing inspections. i asked "why not" when i got here, was told some mystery tale about a political entity that wouldnt permit it ( read between the lines) just saying, it's kinda different
 
I would say yes! However, how much could be gotten over a legal action for a roof permit. I am sure you could find a lawyer to file something. It all comes down to money.
 
Builder Bob said:
If a permit is issued without any inspections performed, isn't the building department and/or inspector liable for civil action under misfeasance?Misfeasance is the inadequate or improper performance of a lawful act
Click to expand...
The answer to that is No. Unless your State has laws that require jurisdictions to perform inspections.Leaving out the rare unusual case of non or misfeasance, the powers that be (including the courts) understand that if jurisdictions are made legally/financially responsible for code deficiencies, building offices would cease to exist. So theoretically, SOME oversight is better than NO oversight.

We do what we can.
 
codeworks said:
this is interesting. we don't perform sheathing nailing inspections ( wall) or roof sheathing inspections as part of our "rough frame" . nor do we do roofing inspections at final. nor do we do drywall nailing inspections. i asked "why not" when i got here, was told some mystery tale about a political entity that wouldn't permit it ( read between the lines) just saying, it's kinda different
Click to expand...
Realistically, most jurisdictions don't inspect many many items in the code. I'd ask, what if that inspector DID get on the roof and looked under say, three areas and found that all was compliant. And later it was discovered that most of the roof wasn't compliant, but he didn't see those parts. Is he still responsible? Why? Why not?. . . . there is no end to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We average between 10-12 inspections for a newly constructed home. Some areas of the country average less, some more. There are different degrees of competency of code officials along with various degrees of verifying compliance. I have witnessed code officiating at an entirely different level than what I am use to seeing in our area. Mostly at a higher level of enforcement. This is not a one size fits all industry but uniformity is always key no matter what area you live in. Complacency in one town does not mean that other towns are not as complacent. There is no reason in my humble opinion why an inspector cannot perform their duty and do a roof inspection whether from the roof edge or from the topside of the roof.

I do understand that permits are issued for more than one reason, such as tracking work performed for tax and other purposes. There are other methods for verifying these items such as a zoning permit or other method. I still believe that if you want to call yourself a code official or a building inspector then you have to act the part and perform the duties of one rather than trying to find excuses not to do your job. If you are have no intentions of performing an inspection for the wellbeing of the public then don't issue a building permit.

When a building owner knows there is a building permit that is required, they have a right to be protected by inspections to ensure that minimum standards are being met. If you want to rely on and always point to the contractor then why even issue any permit?

I am very set in my opinion on this subject as I do lots of expert witness and see first hand the incompetent work that is being done out there.

Again, if you want to or need to verify items other than code compliance, issue something other than a building permit. If there is a statewide licensing of contractors, the owner can do that themselves.

Sorry if I sound harsh on this one but this is one subject that ****es me off.
 
I also fail a lot of roof inspections, mostly flashing issues that can be found during or after the roof is installed. It is much easier to have these items fixed before they leak and cause an insurance claim and unnecessary battle between homeowner and contractor.
 
I have very strong opinions about this as well. There are many valid approaches to our jobs.
 
jar546 said:
When a building owner knows there is a building permit that is required, they have a right to be protected by inspections to ensure that minimum standards are being met.
Click to expand...
From whence comes this right? Is it among those inalienable?

Or our Constitution as amended?

Neigh, it comes from the contract between the Owner and her Builder.

For the City is not the warrantor of code compliance.
 
If a building permit is issued then closing the permit would at some point follow via a certificate of completion/occupancy, whichever term suits. If you do not close it out then whats the point of issuance and how do you close out a permit if an inspection is not performed, you don't.
 
keystone has the best most realistic response yet...... a lot of building permits are issued, never inspected, and automatically closed out after 180 days due to lack of activity..... That is how the majority of building permits (for roofing and re-roofing get purged from the database.)
 
I have several comments.

County does not get on any roof. I will get on a roof if adequate means of access are provided.

Case in point. I was asked Monday if I wanted to go up and inspect the roof deck on an addition to the bus barn. My reply to the contractor was yes, as long as the lift was used. We used the lift, roof deck is inspected, and he is good to go.

Most single family residential here are basic boxes/rectangles. Unless it is something unusual, I don't go on the roof. I do however do a pre-inspection to see what is existing. I've found a lot of roofs that have multiple layers of roofing on them. I saw one with a layer of wood shingles, wood shake, and two layers of comp shingles. Roofing contractor had quite the job with that tear-off.

Finally, as most jobs are residential, I do go by and check for completion. As I'm in a small city (2,700+/-), it isn't that hard to do.

Sue
 
Pcinspector1 said:
This sounds like a re-roof job 2006IRC, R907.3 (4), Where does it say in the code that roof felt is required on a re-roof. No part of Florida is listed in a severe hail exposure area according to figure R903.5. Must be in the Florida Building code?What about inspecting a new house, do you climb on that roof too? Better check your City's insurance policy, they may not cover you?

pc1
Click to expand...
Roof felt is not required on a re-roof where your installing new singles over the existing singles.
 
Which was not allowed under the 2006-2009 IRC, one layer up, 2012 allows two layers. Now, nothing in the reroofiing section says you have to remove and re-apply roofing underlayment.
 
fatboy said:
Which was not allowed under the 2006-2009 IRC, one layer up, 2012 allows two layers. Now, nothing in the reroofiing section says you have to remove and re-apply roofing underlayment.
Click to expand...
Is that a local amendment? It’s been the norm has far back as I remember (60's) to install two layers before tearing off.
 
We don't inspect shingle nailing, permits are only required when adding sheathing over skip or adding weight to the roof. Our re-roof inspections include sheathing nailing progress and our final inspection is flashing only from the ground.
 
It is in the written code, IF you are in the Hail Exposure Map, Figure R903.5 area. Which now looking at the map, Oregon is not. Our area of CO is.
 
DSCN0127.jpg


DSCN0131.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So ICE, opening myself up for your ridicule, what was the point of the pics, I didn't see it........let me have it.........
 
fatboy said:
So ICE, opening myself up for your ridicule, what was the point of the pics, I didn't see it........let me have it.........
Click to expand...
It's been a while hasn't it fatboy. One milestone has been met with one to go. Ironically, you are a person I like....as much as a persona at a computer screen can be liked. I guess a better word would be appreciate. Ya that's the ticket, I appreciated you for as long as it lasted.

Almost dead center of the top picture

DSCN0128.jpg


The other picture is too easy.

OK...I forgot who I am dealing with.

DSCN0136.jpg


You know fatboy, there is an exercise that may be helpful when it comes to finding stuff. It involves both of your hands so it may be tricky at first. You can do it anytime, almost anywhere. You may need help in the beginning to perfect your aim, but once you have it down, you'll enjoy a feeling of accomplishment.

If you think it might be for you...just say the word and I'll tell you all about it.

Here's one to practice with

ShowLettera.jpg


Are ticks like raisins to a crocodile?

Your friend,

Tiger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top