# Never know who is watching.....



## fatboy (Nov 26, 2012)

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


----------



## Yankee (Nov 26, 2012)

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)?


----------



## Rider Rick (Nov 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 26, 2012)

At the very least, you have to get up to the roof's edge.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 26, 2012)

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


----------



## mjesse (Nov 26, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> By the way, where is the fall protection required by OSHA for the roofer (and also for the Inspector, should he gain the roof)?


OSHA has an exemption for inspecting roofs, your employer's opinion may differ

03/02/2010 - Interpretation of OSHA Fall Protection Exemption (29 CFR 1926.500(a)(1)) during inspection, investigation, and assessment activities.

mj


----------



## fatboy (Nov 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## RJJ (Nov 26, 2012)

MJ you are correct! Fatboy is also correct. Sometimes I bring my own harness.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 26, 2012)

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


----------



## jar546 (Nov 26, 2012)

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?


----------



## 97catintenn (Nov 26, 2012)

Yankee said:
			
		

> Towns have building departments but it is unrealistic to expect NO CODE DEFICIENCIES


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.


----------



## 97catintenn (Nov 26, 2012)

Ah, nevermind, I see your point jar46.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 26, 2012)

We don't require re-roof permits on existing SFR's and we do not inspect them.


----------



## Rider Rick (Nov 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 26, 2012)

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?


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?


----------



## jar546 (Nov 26, 2012)

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"


----------



## David Henderson (Nov 26, 2012)

I will go on most ball roofs, but I don't tie off. What you going attach your harness to a sky hook?


----------



## ICE (Nov 26, 2012)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Where does it say in the code that roof felt is required on a re-roof.


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.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Nov 26, 2012)

We are not allowed to go on roofs for insurance reasons. I think we have had this discussion before. Binoculars??


----------



## pyrguy (Nov 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 27, 2012)

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"


  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.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 27, 2012)

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


----------



## fatboy (Nov 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 27, 2012)

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


----------



## codeworks (Nov 27, 2012)

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


----------



## RJJ (Nov 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 27, 2012)

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


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.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 27, 2012)

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


 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.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## Yankee (Nov 27, 2012)

I have very strong opinions about this as well. There are many valid approaches to our jobs.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 27, 2012)

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.


  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.


----------



## Keystone (Nov 27, 2012)

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.


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 28, 2012)

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.)


----------



## Alias (Nov 28, 2012)

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


----------



## kilitact (Nov 28, 2012)

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


Roof felt is not required on a re-roof where your installing new singles over the existing singles.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 28, 2012)

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.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 29, 2012)

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.


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.


----------



## Badeeba (Nov 29, 2012)

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.


----------



## David Henderson (Nov 29, 2012)

We do a tear off, in progress, and final. It's pretty easy to stay on top of in a small Jurisdiction.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 29, 2012)

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.


----------



## ICE (Dec 4, 2012)




----------



## fatboy (Dec 4, 2012)

So ICE, opening myself up for your ridicule, what was the point of the pics, I didn't see it........let me have it.........


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 5, 2012)

ICE is getting ready to poach a doe


----------



## ICE (Dec 5, 2012)

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.........


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






The other picture is too easy.

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






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






Are ticks like raisins to a crocodile?

Your friend,

Tiger


----------



## ICE (Dec 5, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ICE is getting ready to poach a doe


I don't even like them BBQ'd, much less poached.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 5, 2012)

Obviously you're not British.

  Their most popular cooking show is called, "Let's Boil It!"


----------



## elowpop (Dec 11, 2012)

roof inspections usually  a drive by

I am wondering if on a  reroof since its normal  to butt the new shingles  to a wall where there is step flashing and roof cement  the joint.

But at the bottom the flashing  gets pulled up and the new layer gets put under.

I never thought about this before.... It seems that the code proper way would  be to dig down to the step flashing  or open up the siding and install new.

Seems nuts.

I am dealing with a roofer that did not lift the flashing  at the base of a wall and just butted the new.

The lawyer says the jobs bad. My first idea is to agree. Then again if its ok up the side wall why not the base.


----------

