• 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.

Never know who is watching.....

fatboy

fatboy

Administrator
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,891
Location
Northern CO
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/nov/19/largo-homeowner-how-can-inspector-approve-roof-fro-ar-571041/' rel="external nofollow">

Camera captures bogus roof inspection in Largo | TBO.com
 
The City employees that spoke on camera don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. By the way, where is the fall protection required by OSHA for the roofer (and also for the Inspector, should he gain the roof)?
 
The City that I worked for as a Building Inspector would not allow me to go up on the roof.

It's true you never know who is watching.
 
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
 
Opinions are going to be all over the place.

I was questioned from our risk manager, I posted the question, about who provides the ladder, and liability, haven't heard back from him.

I allow my inspectors to use their best judgement about what roof is safe to access. In the case in the video, I think a climb up the ladder provided would have made sense, especially since it had been failed for no access.
 
My biggest issue is that this report promotes the idea that if there is a code discrepancy or violation, it is/was the jurisdictions responsibility to have seen it, and that isn't so. I don't dispute that in some places at some times the ladder is/should be climbed, but it isn't a requirement.

Every town has a Fire Department, but they don't expect to have NO FIRES

Every town has a Police Department but they don't expect NO CRIME

Towns have building departments but it is unrealistic to expect NO CODE DEFICIENCIES
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What exactly are you inspecting if anything at all if you don't get your butt on or to the edge of the roof? What service are you providing? Did you see the flashing during installation or is it still visible? Was there ice and water where required if required in your area? Are the shingles properly installed IAW manufacturer's installation instructions? Is the nailing pattern correct for asphalt?

Why issue a permit if you are not going to properly inspect the roof? Is that not a tax then?
 
Yankee said:
Towns have building departments but it is unrealistic to expect NO CODE DEFICIENCIES
Click to expand...
It's also unrealistic to expect a building inspector to catch everything. That's why it's the contractor's responsibility to insure that the project is at least done to code, not the inspectors.

They should have filmed the contractors, lol.
 
The new BO required all re-roofs to have a permit and a final inspection. We inspected the flashing from the ground no matter how many stories.
 
jar546 said:
What exactly are you inspecting if anything at all if you don't get your butt on or to the edge of the roof? What service are you providing? Did you see the flashing during installation or is it still visible? Was there ice and water where required if required in your area? Are the shingles properly installed IAW manufacturer's installation instructions? Is the nailing pattern correct for asphalt?Why issue a permit if you are not going to properly inspect the roof? Is that not a tax then?
Click to expand...
It is not a tax, it is a user fee. My roof permit is $25. Lets start at the beginning of WHY there is a permit. First, the permit process allows oversight of any required licenses For $25 bucks, if that's ALL it does then a service has been provided. Next, it records (perpetually!!!) who is responsible for the work. And if there is info filled out (such as scope of work, i.e., the contractor attesting that he is removing the old shingles or shingling OVER one layer) then that is additional oversight. etc etc. Do I need to continue or do you understand my point?
 
I have done expert witness on several roofs this year. None had permits and all caused water damage from improper, code-deficient installations which created leaks. One had a permit issued but there were no inspections so I was able to tie the liability to the contractor and the code official (third party agency) to make more money available for the real fix.

If you require a permit but perform no inspection, you are not helping the situation. If you need to verify a license then charge a license verification fee and leave the permit paperwork alone. I believe the contract between the owner and the roofer documents liability. How about when a homeowner does their own roof? If a homeowner does their own work then sells the house and there is a problem, there is no insurance for that. If, however, there was a permit and inspection, there should not have been a problem in the first place.

If there is no inspection required then there should be no building permit issued. Call it something else if you need to.

For whatever reason this one gets me going and I don't know why. Bottom line, if you are going to call it a building permit, do an inspection or don't issue a building permit at all. Issue a "Contractor license verification certificate"
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Where does it say in the code that roof felt is required on a re-roof.
Click to expand...
I am away from town so I can't provide code quotes.

The definitions tie it together.

A "roof covering" which is what a re-roof is, includes underlay.

Mine is a minority opinion.

Many disagree in an effort to sanction a "roof covering" applied over an existing roof covering without underlay.

As to going on a roof. I usually do. [mostly for the pictures] Never on tile, too steep[5"in12"] any material, too hot out on asphalt shingle, crap ladder, raining, two story ladder not tied off, roof covered with a tarp or plastic, thunder and lightning in the area, etc.

That's less that ten percent and I always get to the edge of the roof.

Roofs don't get beat up much around here so it's not that big of a deal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then Jar, you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the role/responsibilities of a building department. A building permit is just that. . . a permit to build. It is not a vehicle for shedding a contractors responsibility for code compliance off onto a jurisdiction.
 
OSHA tagged a Fire Marshal Inspector for no fall protection based on a picture in the newspaper a while back. (IIRC it was in California) So don't bet the farm of the 'opinion' referenced above.
 
R905.2.7 Underlayment application. For roof slopes from

two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (17-percent slope), up

to four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33-percent slope),

underlayment shall be two layers applied in the following

manner. Apply a 19-inch (483 mm) strip of underlayment felt

parallel to and starting at the eaves, fastened sufficiently to

hold in place. Starting at the eave, apply 36-inch-wide (914

mm) sheets of underlayment, overlapping successive sheets

19 inches (483 mm), and fastened sufficiently to hold in

place. Distortions in the underlayment shall not interfere with

the ability of the shingles to seal. For roof slopes of four units

vertical in 12 units horizontal (33-percent slope) or greater,

underlayment shall be one layer applied in the following

manner. Underlayment shall be applied shingle fashion, parallel

to and starting from the eave and lapped 2 inches (51

mm), fastened sufficiently to hold in place. Distortions in the

underlayment shall not interfere with the ability of the shingles

to seal. End laps shall be offset by 6 feet (1829 mm).

R907.1 General. Materials and methods of application used

for re-covering or replacing an existing roof covering shall

comply with the requirements of Chapter 9.
 
jar546 said:
I have done expert witness on several roofs this year. None had permits and all caused water damage from improper, code-deficient installations which created leaks. One had a permit issued but there were no inspections so I was able to tie the liability to the contractor and the code official (third party agency) to make more money available for the real fix. If you require a permit but perform no inspection, you are not helping the situation. If you need to verify a license then charge a license verification fee and leave the permit paperwork alone. I believe the contract between the owner and the roofer documents liability. How about when a homeowner does their own roof? If a homeowner does their own work then sells the house and there is a problem, there is no insurance for that. If, however, there was a permit and inspection, there should not have been a problem in the first place. If there is no inspection required then there should be no building permit issued. Call it something else if you need to. For whatever reason this one gets me going and I don't know why. Bottom line, if you are going to call it a building permit, do an inspection or don't issue a building permit at all. Issue a "Contractor license verification certificate"
Click to expand...
Permitting facilitates the transfer of real property by creating documentation of changes. Such records are of interest to the insurance companies necessary in most transactions.

In addition, such records are of interest to taxing authorities when there are taxes upon real property.

The purpose of permitting is bigger than the day to day grind of a building inspector.
 
fatboy,

Thanks for posting the section requiring underlayment, it helps to read the first paragraph of R907.1 which references Chapter 9. Underlayment would be required per section 905.2.7 as fatboy has posted.

The contractor in this case needs to be aware of R905.2.7.2, High wind area requires underlayment and proper fasteners. See map figure R301.2(4) Largo, Florida, Gulf side

pc1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top