• 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

Roof decking (partially plywood, partiall not plywood) Fanwood NJ

A

Atsushi

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
6
Location
Fanwood, nj
Hi,

We are buying a house in Fanwood, NJ (Union County) and the inspection revealed under roof shingles, some parts have plywood decking (the inspector said that this is the standard building practice) and some parts have original wood pieces (the house is 150 years old).

According to the inspector, this may or may not be acceptable depending on the local building code.

We don't know anything about local building code or how we can find out about such code.

Will anyone kindly comment on this?

Thank you,

Atsushi
 
Welcome.

A call to your local building department is your best bet.

Here anyway, provided the original decking is in good condition, it may remain without problem.

The only issue you may have is when you decide to replace your roof. The building department MAY require new sheathing (decking) over top or instead of the existing, which is an additional expense for you
 
Welcome

You might also call a reliable rooting company to look at it to give you an opinion of what was found, condition, and even an estimate to replace the roof.

You should also contact your present insurance company to see what they say.

Joys of home ownership
 
mjesse said:
Welcome.A call to your local building department is your best bet.

Here anyway, provided the original decking is in good condition, it may remain without problem.

The only issue you may have is when you decide to replace your roof. The building department MAY require new sheathing (decking) over top or instead of the existing, which is an additional expense for you
Click to expand...
Thank you! :cool:
 
cda said:
WelcomeYou might also call a reliable rooting company to look at it to give you an opinion of what was found, condition, and even an estimate to replace the roof.

You should also contact your present insurance company to see what they say.

Joys of home ownership
Click to expand...
This is also a good idea! Great!
 
Agree with the two posts above and yes, welcome to the forum!

A good local roofing company should know that code the jurisdiction you are in is on, and how the deal with these situations.
 
I guess it passed lasts years snow test???

Or it weakened it??

Do you know the slope of the roof?
 
cda said:
I guess it passed lasts years snow test???Or it weakened it??

Do you know the slope of the roof?
Click to expand...
ISlyokiw3fcy0o0000000000.jpg


Here is an image of the house. The inspector was able to access part of the roof that is right next to the dorm room.

The plywood decking was missing from there (it looks pretty steep). But he found plywood decking other parts of the roof.

His theory is that either it is permitted by local building code and because it was in a good shape at the time of roof replacement, they (the owner and the contractor) decided to keep it as it is OR the contractor cheated the owner (in her 70s) to save cost.

Shingles are just one layer, and it's only a few years old. So if we own this house for 10 years, it is unlikely that we have to replace the roof (likely we'll put the second layer) unless of course, we need to.
 
The inspector found it to be great condition. He also indicated that plywood is a standard building practice. So it puzzled him why parts of the roof has playwood decking and others don't. He also indicated that there is no practical problem with keeping it as it is (unless of course, it is a violation local code). But the only issue is when fireman walks on the roof, he may plunge through it (if it's weakened by fire). But I can't picture in what situation, a fireman would walk on the roof!
 
Atsushi:

It sounds like your house originally had board sheathing like all buildings did before the advent of plywood, at some point it was reroofed and deteriorated boards were replaced with plywood because it's cheaper and quicker. Board sheathing (Usually 1x8 but sometimes different sizes) is actually better than plywood because it allows for better air circulation, board sheathing is still allowed by code, it sounds like your home inspector doesn't know what he's talking about. Ask him what kind of sheathing is existing where there is no plywood.
 
conarb said:
Atsushi:It sounds like your house originally had board sheathing like all buildings did before the advent of plywood, at some point it was reroofed and deteriorated boards were replaced with plywood because it's cheaper and quicker. Board sheathing (Usually 1x8 but sometimes different sizes) is actually better than plywood because it allows for better air circulation, board sheathing is still allowed by code, it sounds like your home inspector doesn't know what he's talking about. Ask him what kind of sheathing is existing where there is no plywood.
Click to expand...
Caveat is diaphragm stiffness requirements.

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
Caveat is diaphragm stiffness requirements. Brent.
Click to expand...
Well then I have to ask, are you saying that if a diaphragm is installed it needs to be secured to the foundation?
 
Atsushi said:
Hi,We are buying a house in Fanwood, NJ (Union County) and the inspection revealed under roof shingles, some parts have plywood decking (the inspector said that this is the standard building practice) and some parts have original wood pieces (the house is 150 years old).

According to the inspector, this may or may not be acceptable depending on the local building code.

We don't know anything about local building code or how we can find out about such code.

Will anyone kindly comment on this?

Thank you,

Atsushi
Click to expand...
Don't give it another thought. Stay away from the building department. And somebody mentioned the insurance company...oh Hell no.
 
Solid wood sheathing was standard practice until around the late 1950s from then until the 1990s plywood was normal, now OSB is what is most often used. Exact dates will vary regionally and there was a transition period. All are acceptable and can still be used. What is chosen is generally what is cheapest. All can be used together as long as the plywood OSB and boards are the same thickness for appearance purposes. FWIIW my house has both in different parts built at different times.
 
Atsushi said:
The inspector found it to be great condition. He also indicated that plywood is a standard building practice. So it puzzled him why parts of the roof has playwood decking and others don't. He also indicated that there is no practical problem with keeping it as it is (unless of course, it is a violation local code). But the only issue is when fireman walks on the roof, he may plunge through it (if it's weakened by fire). But I can't picture in what situation, a fireman would walk on the roof!
Click to expand...
Any will collapse when weakened by fire. Firefighters walk on the roof for a variety of reasons--to access chimneys for chimney fires and to cut holes in it for ventilation.
 
conarb said:
Atsushi:It sounds like your house originally had board sheathing like all buildings did before the advent of plywood, at some point it was reroofed and deteriorated boards were replaced with plywood because it's cheaper and quicker. Board sheathing (Usually 1x8 but sometimes different sizes) is actually better than plywood because it allows for better air circulation, board sheathing is still allowed by code, it sounds like your home inspector doesn't know what he's talking about. Ask him what kind of sheathing is existing where there is no plywood.
Click to expand...
I agree with all statements above.
 
ICE said:
Well then I have to ask, are you saying that if a diaphragm is installed it needs to be secured to the foundation?
Click to expand...
NegaTOORY.

Kind of. Referring to new constructionness-ess. So...yea?

I hate trick questions. Don't you have someplace you need to go? I shall get over it by drinking this 32 oz. Miller High Life. Cause it's the time.

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
NegaTOORY.Kind of. Referring to new constructionness-ess. So...yea?

I hate trick questions. Don't you have someplace you need to go? I shall get over it by drinking this 32 oz. Miller High Life. Cause it's the time.

Brent.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought you meant. And actually I don't have anywhere I need to be. Well I do need a haircut. Not as bad as you do.... but then it does sorta go with the dress.

Some time ago I was sitting through a sensitivity training class. It seems that I'm not all that sensitive. I discovered that among the protected classes is cross-dressers. I asked point blank if I were to show up for work in a dress and Woody started laughing...could I sue for discrimination and the answer was yes. Woody was already laughing so my obvious next question was do I still need to buy a dress?...the answer was maybe.

I told Woody that I would stop at Goodwill on the way home....he offered to take me to Nordstom. At the time, I didn't know that Woody is a multimillionaire. I could have gotten shoes and a purse to match.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you got the dress anyway?

Probably looks horrible with those Danners.

I won't ask about your high heel collection.

Brent.
 
[QUOTE='ICE]Some time ago I was sitting through a sensitivity training class.

[/QUOTE]Building inspectors take sensitivity classes? Tell us citizens Tiger, to whom are you required to be "sensitive"?
 
conarb said:
Building inspectors take sensitivity classes? Tell us citizens Tiger, to whom are you required to be "sensitive"?
Click to expand...
Lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, transsexual, cross-dressers and all women. At first I thought that the women should be just a tad bit annoyed with this. Then I remembered that they are a little crazy too.

As I scanned the audience it became clear that there were a few of the protected classes in the room. Then I began to wonder about a few others in attendance. By the time it was over I was plenty sensitive....Hell, my buttocks were cramping.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
Lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, transsexual, cross-dressers and all women. At first I thought that the women should be just a tad bit annoyed with this. Then I realized that they are a little crazy too.
Click to expand...
But it's now LGBTQ, the Q stands for "queer", doesn't queer cover them all? What about this forum's favorite people the disabled, aren't they included? Then too, what about us old people, isn't ageism a crime too, don't you have to be sensitive to us octogenarians? We've always been sensitive to women, open doors for them, light their cigarettes, walk on the street side to keep horses and buggies from splashing them, but the other day I opened a door for a woman and she said: "I can open my own damn doors!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top