# The Tale of an Incompetent Inspector



## jar546 (Jul 28, 2014)

We were called in to do the electrical service only on the detached garage in another jurisdiction.  I mentioned the wall bracing issues per 602.10 to the BCO but was told there were no problems there.  I guess not.

View attachment 2088


View attachment 2089


View attachment 2090


View attachment 2088


View attachment 2089


View attachment 2090


/monthly_2014_07/IMAG0175.jpg.7a30277da6cad38e4c024e58aaf70b91.jpg

/monthly_2014_07/IMAG0176.jpg.662295a9dea3c4914bd2c779117cc81c.jpg

/monthly_2014_07/IMAG0177.jpg.9c4fcb7a20968eac47b4de65ad6dbafa.jpg


----------



## steveray (Jul 28, 2014)

I'd be more concerned with the transformer placement....HA.....


----------



## cda (Jul 28, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> I'd be more concerned with the transformer placement....HA.....


optical illusion


----------



## Wayne (Jul 28, 2014)

Do you know the seismic design category or wind speed in that area?   I'm not familiar with where it may be located.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 28, 2014)

Building Code used? and year?

Even the old IRC2000, 602.10 calls out wall bracing, can't see any in the pic's.

Jar, please tell what you see!

pc1


----------



## jar546 (Jul 28, 2014)

Wayne said:
			
		

> Do you know the seismic design category or wind speed in that area?   I'm not familiar with where it may be located.


Seismic zone C

Wind 90mph

2009 IRC with no amendments

Regardless of the first two above, it is still a problem


----------



## Wayne (Jul 28, 2014)

Re: The Tale of an Incompetent Inspector



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> Seismic zone CWind 90mph
> 
> 2009 IRC with no amendments
> 
> Regardless of the first two above, it is still a problem


I was just curious because a lot people I've talked to from back east aren't used to enforcing the seismic and wind requirements but that was some years ago so things may have changed since then.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 29, 2014)

Jar

You posted those photos a long time ago on a previous post. Did you ever get back and see if anything was done. It is not a difficult fix, you might even be able to use the 2012 IRC R602.12 for the fix.


----------



## Keystone (Jul 29, 2014)

Recommend that BO read R602 & for visuals go to APA's website, just google wall bracing.

Jar, I feel your pain. This is one of our #1 plan review comments, wall bracing details required.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 29, 2014)

Strong walls.

I hate them, but they solve problems like that. Depending on the footing you can retrofit them in place.

The problem there is the headers need to run over the top of the walls to get them in spec.

Brent


----------



## ICE (Jul 29, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Strong walls. the headers need to run over the top of the walls to get them in spec.
> 
> Brent


Would you do it like this?













I was there in place of the usual inspector.  The request said "framing inspection".  All I said was, "Where's the king studs".  The contractor canceled the inspection.

I can't seem to get past the garages anymore.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 29, 2014)

Old boy's missing some parts. Still have to transfer up. It hadn't occurred to anybody yet on how the jams were going to connect.

In their defense, the "drawers", as they can't possibly architects, always want to cram 10 pounds of sh1t in a 5 pound sack, and that's most the problem layed on the poor jackass trying to do the cramming.

As a side note, as if strong walls aren't horrible enough, hardy came along and inflicted some class A horribleness with hardi walls.

That's some right fine pro level mean right there. Yessir.

Brent


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 29, 2014)

Brent,

When you end a sentence with "Yessir" there's got to be a spittoon near by, am I right?  

pc1


----------



## Min&Max (Jul 29, 2014)

Much ado about nothing. Garages have been built like this for over 50 years with no identifiable problem. But then at an annual marketing event, which is sometimes mistaken for code hearings, a company came up with a product for a non-existent problem. They sold it to a majority in a half full room and now the problem is solved.


----------



## Min&Max (Jul 29, 2014)

Oh yeah. The problem that needed solving? Not enough profit at the end of the year for the company selling the product.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 29, 2014)

We had 2 owner built homes this year that where designed and constructed to the IBC by structural engineers, Under the IRC prescriptive method there would have been about 12 additional alternate shear panels with hold downs or STHD's. Just because it doesn't meet the IRC does not mean it is a disaster waiting to happen. This garage is an easy fix


----------



## ICE (Jul 29, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> This garage is an easy fix


Anchor bolts would be a good start.


----------



## mjesse (Jul 29, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Just because it doesn't meet the IRC does not mean it is a disaster waiting to happen.


Blasphemy!!

Ready thyself for flogging


----------



## Frank (Jul 29, 2014)

There are many many built years ago just like that, many with horizontal board siding no sheathing and diagonal corner braces-- the only one's I have seen racked crooked were due to advanced rot or tree hits.  It may not readily calculate but the three sided box seems to work for our 90 mph wind zone.  2 ft wide on either side of the door with plywood or a corner brace 2 ft down and 2 ft over was traditional here.  For the 3 sided box to rack one of the rear corners has to pick up or the roof to wall connection has to fail.  The calculations that the precriptive provisions for these panels are based on a 2 dimensional calc of just the front wall they do not take into account the roof diaphram action in conjunction with the other 3 sides nor the rigidity provided by either sheathing over the short wall and the wall above or by corner bracing or by structural member going past the header.  Typically they assumed pin connections at the 4 corners of the braced panel for simplicity.  A more accurate analysis would have to include a deformed indeterminate structural analysis.


----------



## steveray (Jul 29, 2014)

I agree it works Frank, just doesn't meet code here.....for better or worse....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 29, 2014)

I have learned that just because a house has existed for 70 years, and through a few earthquakes, and some gnarly wind gusts, is totally irrelevant. We contractors get to explain to the client the absurdity of the new 200 sf addition with 4 strong walls and Amish timber framing, and 36" deep footings with sstb's sourced from old battleships.

We can thank the 200% safety margin for that crap.

Brent.


----------



## north star (Jul 29, 2014)

*= + =*



The presence of the requirement in the codes for more

wind & seismic restraints DO have [ IMO ] a legitimate

place, but, in some states, ...adding all of that "required"

hardware and engineered framing should be recognized

by the insurance carriers [ of that State ] and count

towards a reduction in their insurance policies "IF"

the hardware and framing are actually installed correctly.



***ICE**'s*  picture is a good example of yet another

butchered up, field installation where someone took it

upon themselves to render that particular steel Strong

Wall voided, and the adjacent framing virtually useless.

FWIW,  ...the State in which I am located, the insurance

carriers do not offer such discounts........On a similar note,

the insurance carriers also do not offer any discounts to

single family homes for installing Residential type sprinkler

systems, ...even if they are installed correctly !

The Money Train just keeps on a rollin'.





> "Brent,When you end a sentence with "Yessir" there's got to be a spittoon near by, am I right? :wink: "


That's pretty darned funny ***PC*** !



*= + =*


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 30, 2014)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> Much ado about nothing. Garages have been built like this for over 50 years with no identifiable problem. But then at an annual marketing event, which is sometimes mistaken for code hearings, a company came up with a product for a non-existent problem. They sold it to a majority in a half full room and now the problem is solved.


I would have to disagree on this one.  Let me give you a ten minute tour around the older part of our town - and you'll see a very identifiable problem.  Perhaps our building methods were different than yours 50 years ago, but a great many of these garages are leaning enough to be a problem.  Not just a cosmetic issue.  Structural failure in many cases.

I think we've taken the bracing requirements a bit too far - but to say there's no problem, is a bit of an oversimplification, IMO.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 30, 2014)

IBC shows that a private garage is a U-occupancy.

Do we need to be in the  IBC, using chapter 23 or do you automatically use the IRC code on a detached garage?


----------



## steveray (Jul 30, 2014)

IRC.........R101.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress ***************************and their accessory structures.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 30, 2014)

I would in in trouble if I enforced wall bracing here in PA. The township would get a new third party inspector, and I would be looking for a new job. PA also took wall bracing out of the 2009 IRC and referred to the 2006 IRC.


----------



## steveray (Jul 30, 2014)

Rick....wall bracing is in 2006........R602.10 Wall bracing.

All exterior walls shall be braced in accordance with this section. In addition, interior braced wall lines shall be provided in accordance with Section R602.10.1.1. For buildings in Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2, walls shall be constructed in accordance with the additional requirements of Sections R602.10.9, R602.10.11, and R602.11.

They are just trying to make it more understandable and therefore enforceable in the newer codes....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 30, 2014)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Brent,When you end a sentence with "Yessir" there's got to be a spittoon near by, am I right?
> 
> pc1


Meal of the day bro.





Brent.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 30, 2014)

Just as well could have taken the OP photos and titled it incompetent builder, state lacks training, Tuesday after a holiday, etc.

Anyhow what do you think of this retrofit?

Narrow Garage Wall Retrofit Fix


----------



## jar546 (Jul 30, 2014)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> I would in in trouble if I enforced wall bracing here in PA. The township would get a new third party inspector, and I would be looking for a new job. PA also took wall bracing out of the 2009 IRC and referred to the 2006 IRC.


How many times do we have to hear that story?  Really?  Is that an excuse to not do your job?  This is why there is so much trouble enforcing simple, basic, minimum requirements when inspectors "sell out" to perceived issues and use that as an excuse to not perform their job.  I'm not apologizing for this statement either.  This is total BS and nothing more than a copout.

(Insert photo of testicles in a jar held by someone else here)


----------



## ICE (Jul 30, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> (Insert photo of testicles in a jar held by someone else here)


I know that you can do it Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 30, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> I know that you can do it Brent


So to be clear, you want a photo, held by someone else, of some testicles? In a Jar?

Well, OK.

Brent.


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 30, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> How many times do we have to hear that story?  Really?  Is that an excuse to not do your job?  This is why there is so much trouble enforcing simple, basic, minimum requirements when inspectors "sell out" to perceived issues and use that as an excuse to not perform their job.  I'm not apologizing for this statement either.  This is total BS and nothing more than a copout.(Insert photo of testicles in a jar held by someone else here)


No need to apologize for the statement - but I will chime in with a question, and a statement.

The question:  Jar - I understand that you work as hired third party inspector in many jurisdictions.  Have you worked as an on staff AHJ inspector?

The statement:  Politics exist.  The system exists.  Sometimes you have to play by other's rules.  I don't like it, and I bucked it for many years.  Had to decide a long time ago - do I give up, and leave the system because we do not enforce 100% of the book as written and adopted, or do I stay the course, do my absolute best within the constraints of the system, and work to make improvements whenever I can?

Been here 18 years.  Seen a lot of change.  I think I'll stick around and keep moving the bar higher every chance I get.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 30, 2014)

Ever wonder why there are currently up to 16 braced wall methods with visual aid in the code then they needed to have a simplified method?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 31, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> No need to apologize for the statement - but I will chime in with a question, and a statement. The question:  Jar - I understand that you work as hired third party inspector in many jurisdictions.  Have you worked as an on staff AHJ inspector?
> 
> The statement:  Politics exist.  The system exists.  Sometimes you have to play by other's rules.  I don't like it, and I bucked it for many years.  Had to decide a long time ago - do I give up, and leave the system because we do not enforce 100% of the book as written and adopted, or do I stay the course, do my absolute best within the constraints of the system, and work to make improvements whenever I can?
> 
> Been here 18 years.  Seen a lot of change.  I think I'll stick around and keep moving the bar higher every chance I get.


The following is a statement directed at an industry, not a specific person.

Yes, I have been a staff employee as a BCO and inspector and know first hand what you are talking about.  I also have a 3rd party agency that has the exact same issues, except worse because it is easier to not renew your contract than it is to fire an employee.

1) I have lost contracts because I refuse to play politics

2) I have had contracts terminated because I refuse to play politics and cave in

3) I will continue to lose business because we don't play the game and continue to treat everyone fair and equal and enforce these simple, minimum rules.

The difference between myself and some others is that:

I refuse to compromise my integrity like some of you do.

I sleep at night knowing I did my job to the best of my ability without compromising on my integrity.

I am not so lazy that I continue to use others as an excuse as to why I don't do my job

I educate those that attempt political intimidation on me or my employees.  This actually works most of the time.  When it does not I say "oh well" and continue on the right path.

I work with other code officials in other towns more than ever now to share information and band together so that we are more consistent.

I will go to my grave knowing that I gave my best shot in this industry and refused to cave in to those that attempt to contaminate and undermine the system.

Like I heard someone once say:  "I don't embrace excuses, I only embrace solutions"

So each and every one of us should be banding together and standing for what you believe in, especially when you know it is the law and you are right.  If you don't then you are just as much part of the problem for now pushing back with education and common sense.

So you can whine, moan, groan and complain while you allow others to walk all over you or you can do your job.  Real simple.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 31, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> I think I'll stick around and keep moving the bar higher every chance I get.


For many small jurisdictions around here there is a saying that goes something like this;

"ask for a little at a time; eventually you'll end up with the whole pie; ask for the whole pie and you'll receive nothing afterwards"


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 31, 2014)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> For many small jurisdictions around here there is a saying that goes something like this;"ask for a little at a time; eventually you'll end up with the whole pie; ask for the whole pie and you'll receive nothing afterwards"


I like that one.  I feel like I've received a good portion of the pie over the years.  Like Jar said - I push back with education and common sense.  Works most of the time.


----------



## conarb (Jul 31, 2014)

Both of the examples cited here are garages, I don't see it as an indictment fo the contractors involved so much as an indictment of the jurisdiction for even issuing a permit that should have had all of these complaints resolved at plan check.  An example is that I have a permit application in now for a 507 Square foot garage and 490 square foot Art Gallery addition on my own home, I was in today replacing 7 of the 18 sheets in the plans with revised sheets, I will probably go though this a couple of more times before the permit is issued:

1) A1 Cover

2) A2 Floor Plan

3) A3 Elevations and Sections

4) A4 Roof Plan

5) E1 Electrical

6) T24 Title 24 Energy

7) GB1 Green Building

8) GB2 Green Building

9) Site Plan

10) C1 Civil Engineering Grading Plan

11) C2 Civil Engineering Erosion Control Plan

12) C3 Civil Engineering Erosion Control Notes and Details

13) S1 Structural Engineering Notes

14) S2 Structural Engineering Foundation

15) S3 Structural Engineering Wall & Roof Plans

16) S4 Details

17) S4.1 Details

18) S5 Details

I purposely kept the living area under 500 square feet so as not to trigger several other requirements, including a huge school district fee to pay for solar panels on schools, I also filed my application on June 30th so as not to trigger the new Energy and Green code requirements that would have added a considerable amount to the cost, the Civil Engineering did include ADA details to the new curb cut and driveway approach.  There will also be several Chapter 17 Special Inspections and Structural Observations that will be submitted to the City prior to Final.


----------



## Frank (Jul 31, 2014)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> I would have to disagree on this one.  Let me give you a ten minute tour around the older part of our town - and you'll see a very identifiable problem.  Perhaps our building methods were different than yours 50 years ago, but a great many of these garages are leaning enough to be a problem.  Not just a cosmetic issue.  Structural failure in many cases. I think we've taken the bracing requirements a bit too far - but to say there's no problem, is a bit of an oversimplification, IMO.


I too have seen many leaning older garages, but they typically have advanced rot from roof and or wall water management failures.

I know it does not meet code but my point is that code has gone too far.


----------



## ICE (Jul 31, 2014)

I've seen garages that were held up by the stuff in the garage.  I can rock one building with bare hands.  I could get it going enough to fall down.  It's been there for the 20 years I've known the owner.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 31, 2014)

Conarb, I feel your pain, will they allow a PDF to be submitted? 18 sheets, "That's a small tree!"

pc1


----------

