Want to Reply to this Post? You need to Log On or Click Here to create a new Account

	Topic:
	CIAK: [ Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Wednesday, July 18, 2012 @ 10:49 AM     I am a : Roofer   Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day, Code Enforcement building officials are failing dry in inspections on existing residential asphalt shingle re-roofing projects using ASTM D4869. Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day
	Replies:  [ 1 thru 8 of 8 ]
	tinner666: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Wednesday, July 18, 2012 @ 11:13 AM     I am a : Slate Roof Repair Specialist   Sure good to know the underlay is more important than the roof. They should felt them, spread some tar and be done with it. Frank www.rentaroofer.com DIY Help www.albertsroofing.com/ Slate Roofing Domain Names www.domainsaleszone.com e-mail for discount coupons
	twill59: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Wednesday, July 18, 2012 @ 1:11 PM     I am a : Roofer   They only want to see I&W during their drive bys up here. Does not matter what kind of I&W. Does not matter if the ventilation is screwed. Or the nailing incorrect. Or sloppy. Or just plain wrong Does not matter if the walls or chimney is flashed. Nope. Gotta have some kind of I&W up there. Some kind of I&W....
	CIAK: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Wednesday, July 18, 2012 @ 3:56 PM     I am a : Roofer   The asphalt shingles section of 2010 Florida Building Code residential R9052.3 Underlayment allows the use of ASTM D4869 type 1 underlayment. R905.2.3 Underlayment. Unless otherwise noted required underlayment shall conform with ASTM D226 Type 1 or Type 11. ASTM D4869, Type 1 or Type 11 or ASTM D6757. Self-adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet shall comply with ASTM D1970. The roofing contractor argument against the supposed code violation would appear to be correct if the construction in question had been new construction, however in the case of existing site built single family construction, including a reroof application, the 2010 FBC Existing Building requirements take precedence along with any additional steps required for wind mitigation compliance. Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day
	ND: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Wednesday, July 18, 2012 @ 6:55 PM     I am a : Roofer   In ND only requirement is to be install I&W 24" behind heated wall. Yet, does not matter which type and we have no inspectors ensuring the roof is installed correctly. Wish we did.. Usually takes 7 or so years for a poorly installed roof to show itself. When it does I usually get called and point out what happened and homeowner can't find the original contractor and I get cleaning up the mess. Needless to say but we stay busy...
	CIAK: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Thursday, July 19, 2012 @ 8:57 AM     I am a : Roofer   The code does not mention any type of ASTM D4869 as an approved option for underlayment in the reroofing section of Chapter 6 alterations - Level 1. The pertinent requirement found in 611.7(b)... then take care to look at section 611.7.2 that is referred to in 611.7 When a roof covering on an existing site-built single-family residential structure is removed and replaced the following procedures shall be permitted to be performed by the roofing contractor. Some of the point of this is for you guys who think Licensing in your state would be a good thing. This is what happens. You have not even started to install the shingles yet. Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day
	tico: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Thursday, July 19, 2012 @ 10:06 PM     I am a : Roofer   I'm right now helping A friend in Miami. Brings back memories. Down here we call it the 3 f's they Fail you, Fine you, Fifty bucks. They have done it to me on roofs, screen rooms and enclosures, concrete, I am not nice, I know it's coming and I'm brutal with them. They walk up and I IMMIDIATELY say, I'm sure theirs A screw, on my cage missing,or tin cap, on concrete they ask for slump report,or some assenine code readout. I could give A f/$!, and I tell them they are the scourge. It's all about generating revenue, and these scumbags are extortion capitalist. They are all dirty and nasty, they are goaded with getting fired for under achievement. They remind me of the donut eating ticket writer.
	TomB: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Saturday, July 21, 2012 @ 11:58 AM     I am a : Roofer   We haven't used 4869 since late 80's....Albiet, when we relocated to Colo., we had to special order, as none of the suppliers carried it. Inpections just don't happen, and if they do by some particualr municipality, the inspector typically hasn't a clue.
	CIAK: [ RE: Have you ever failed an Inspection?? ] , Saturday, July 21, 2012 @ 1:12 PM     I am a : Roofer   Let us continue..... As indicated, the exception at the end 611.7 applies to any SBSF structures that received it initial permit as a part of FBC that was introduced in March 2002. There are inconsistencies in the roof deck attachment requirements mentioned in 611.7 (a) later. Lets look at what the FBC says about the second water barrier for existing SBSF structures. On and on the conundrum goes. The inconsistent Building Code, the enforcement and interpretation will and has shut jobs down. This is the tip of the iceberg!! Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it all. Some you don't want. Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day