Building codes/inspections that don't make sense

[Matt Ocel]

I can't get a good answer from some of the local building officials as to why -

1) Why do I need a roof inspection (ice and water) for a roof on an existing home, but not on a new construction home?

2) Why is a co2 monitor required in new construction, when in new construction, only high efficient-sealed combustion units are required?

3) Why do I need energy calcs when installing a garage furnace knowing perfectly well that they will not meet min. requirements because of the overhead door opening? But they let you put one in anyway.

4) Why do they inspect wall sheathing but not roof sheathing?

5) Why are grading as builts required on all new construction homes?
That inspection alone would save thousands (of headaches and dollars).

These are just a few.

Any other ones you can think of?

[Lee Schierer]

On item #1 the new roof construction is probably specified elswhere int eh code on how the roofs have to be made and what loads they need to support. Older construction may not have been built to those standards and therefore would not support the weight. Also, They know on new construction there is a 99% chance that only one layer of roofing will be present and the supproting structure will all be new. You don't know how many layers are on the old roof and what condition the underlying sturcture was in.

With regard to the furnace and CO detector. First of all they are a good idea with today's modern tight homes. If the combustion air comes from the basement or furnace room then exhaust fans elsewhere inte house can draw CO back through the air inlet even overpowering the exhaust fan for the furnace.

Sorry I have no idea on the others! and the above ideas are just guesses.

lee

[Matt Ocel]

Lee -

For the roofing inspection - All they want to see is the Ice and Water protection. Thats it. They don't even come out to see it. We take pictures and leave them at the job site until final inspection when they come out to make sure any face nails are caulked.

Thats why its so strange to me.

When the inspectors come out I ask them why they inspect ice and water on existing and not on new, they look at me funny and say "Thats a good question".

For the c02's the combustion air comes from the outside through the unit itself ie water heater, fireplace, furnace, if the combustion air is resricted in any way, the sensors will not let that appliance run. In addition new homes have a 6" passive fresh air intake.

[Lee Schierer]

One other thought is that all codes tend to be living documents and are usually a bit behind the times and revised by committees (remember a camel is a horse designed by a committee). If the updating team didn't catch all the paragraphs when they called for the "high efficiency" heaters, then the CO detectors may be old language and will get revised the next time they do revisions, assuming any one complains or files a request for a change. It might also be that the CO monitor manufacturer lobby is quite strong and wants to sell detectors.....:D

[Matt Ocel]

Lee
The co2 requirements are recent additions. Thats what makes these code requirements absurd and costly.

I like your second theory best.;)

[Ben Rafael]

Reasons codes exist?
From my personal experience:
Many make sense when explained by someone who knows them. A good inspector understands the codes and the reasons for them and knows which ones should be enforced strictly.
Some exist because of external pressure from manufacturers and unions and others who can make a buck from them.

As an example, In los angeles waterless urinals are not to code because the plumbers union here has enough pull to keep them out of the code. The waterless urinals need much less maintenance which means less work for plumbers and therefore less money for the plumbers and the union. In other counties in this state they have been using them for years without problems.

[Matt Ocel]

Good one Ben!

I guess you have to throw common sense out the window on some of these codes.

Theres a comment on a thread in workshops.
In a certian municipality a homeowner will pay less for a permit than a contractor for the same scope of work.

Thats just wrong. For many reasons.

[Greg Cuetara]

Ben,
I thought a while back I heard that a municipal building in LA wanted waterless urinals so they had to plumb in the whole building as if there were regular urinals just in case the waterless units didn't work and then they could install regular urinals. All about the union and keeping them busy.

As someone who works with codes quite a bit I can say there are some items which are necessary, some which don't make sense, and some that are annoying. It is nice to be able to hang your hat on something when a client says, why do we have to do this. On the other hand sometimes I am the one asking why we have to do something.

You are also correct Ben that the codes make sense when someone who understands them can enforce them and understands what should be strickly enforced and what can be let go. Another problem with all the codes is that it is a way to make money...have to pay for this permit and that permit and this inspection and that inspection. Some of it is good and some not so worth it.

Greg

[Jim Becker]

Greg, I believe that was the new COMCAST building in Philadelphia with the waterless urinals and it was a labor issue, not a matter of questionable function.

[Greg Cole]

Asking questions that don't have any answers..... midnight glancers.. topless dancers...
Oh wait that's Kid Rock. LOL
Better you have to deal with those that I, Matt. Me no likey dealing with that stuff....;)
I deal with some custom machinery imported frokm Europe at work that often is a one off nearly prototype.... when asking a German engineer why they did something the way they did... the retort was atypical German, "the reason for this is there is no good reason".:eek:

Greg

[Matt Ocel]

"the reason for this is there is no good reason".

Sweet!

I'm going to use that line on the job site Monday morning, and I'm sure it will get plenty of mileage.

[Greg Cole]

Matt,
Worst part @ that quote is I was on a job site installing 4 machines valued at about $450K each as part of a total upgrade to a plants production lines..... and I had to answer to the plant engineer on the feedback from the German engineer ASAP. Although sometimes straight up honesty with a twist of humor isn't a bad thing when times aren't so smooth.... lightens the air for a minute or 3 anyway. Or you find out the plant people sometimes don't have any humor....:rolleyes:

G

[David DeCristoforo]

The "reason" is simply that we have a large number of bureaucrats who have little to do other than try and think of ways to justify their salaries. They think that their job is to protect the ignorant public from every imaginable pitfall. Combine that with all of the backs that must be scratched and special interests that must be catered to, we end up with some pretty strangely contorted regulations. My experience with inspectors has been amusing to say the least. None of them know all of the regs but each has his/her own little pets. So you never know what is going to get pulled out of the hat. Sometimes, as you have pointed out, what comes out of the hat can leave you scratching your head. Looking for logic here may prove the most maddening undertaking of all.

[Greg Cuetara]

Greg, I believe that was the new COMCAST building in Philadelphia with the waterless urinals and it was a labor issue, not a matter of questionable function.

Jim,
I stand corrected. Wherever it is it doesn't make sense to spend tax payer money that way.
Greg

[Jim Becker]

Examples from our recent addition project...



Inspector rolls in just prior to pouring the rat slab for the crawl space and is yelling even as he leaves his vehicle. We never even met him before and he hasn't actually "inspected anything". Our mild-mannered mason (who is amazing in every way) nearly says a few bad words he NEVER says during this interaction where the inspector demands that we pour 3.5" instead of the 2" on the APPROVED plan. Insists that code requires this, despite the fact that code actually says 2". Cost: $600 additional in concrete (the whole addition, not including the walks, patio and porch surface is over 30 yards of concrete by the time we make everyone happy)
Same inspector causes us to delay the pour for the new front porch because there is no vapor barrier on top of the stone and under the steel. Claims that "someone might want to close it in someday. Right. People owning properties like this one don't close in front porches, especially on what would soon be a 4000 sq ft structure. Cost: a few bucks, but a two day delay in the work
Township requires both knee walls and collar ties in a roof structure that is 2x12 with a huge microlam ridge and solid plywood sheathing as well as a solid deck over most of the attic floor rafters because it's conditioned space...way above code...we could now park a tractor trailer on top of the structure and it likely wouldn't bend or flex in any way. Cost...who knows
Township requires a sprinkler system in the addition because it's over 1000 square ft. Local fire code dude says, "it's really not all that expensive". Yea, right. We're on a well. Therefore we need not only the sprinkler system itself, but also a pump and a huge 350 gallon holding tank. The latter required structural changes to the framing in order to have a place to put it as well as, yes...extra concrete in the crawl space slab to support the weight. Oh, and when there is no power? (as there might be with the most common reason for a house fire...electrical...) No sprinklers. Cost: between the $8000 for the system and the other remediations, about $12-15K extra over budget. Thankfully, no retrofit to the original structure which would have been ugly given the 18" solid stone walls. (And the big, name builder putting up McMansions across the street got away without sprinkler systems I might add)
Township requires a tempered glass window in our shower. This is a window that is over 5' off the floor. Cost: $250 extra, give or take
Township reviews plans the first time; takes two months and then fails them with a long list of "corrections" (read: add minutia to them despite the fact that everything is standard practice). Ok, architect takes care of it and we resubmit with everything exactly as the township wants. They take over a month and then fail it again with another long list of demands...more minutia. Contractor (who in all his years of doing high-end work has never had this much greif) goes to the township office and basically tells the folks there that he is not leaving their office without a permit in-hand. He'll stipulate to all there "you know what" in writing, but we are not going to wait any longer. The plans would be modified as requested and submitted prior to final inspection. They caved. But the cost: nearly $5000 in additional architect fees

That inspector I mentioned in the first two? (A contractor) He was removed from the township and replaced part way through our project and the guy who replaced him was much more fair. Unfortunately, that original inspector is now the one reviewing the plans in the township...oy! 'Glad I don't have any new projects coming along!

[Jeffrey Makiel]

Jim,
It sounds like you need to go to a city counsel meeting and explain that the building department (and the tax department) are not there to prevent improvements in your community.

-Jeff :)

[Jim Becker]

Like that hasn't been tried numerous times by many people...LOL...

These are the same folks who made the church up the road that Professor Dr SMWBO takes the girls to take down a sign for their pre-K child care program. It was in front of the old original church building as it has always been for pretty much as long as we've lived here because it's a very reasonable and visible location to the intersection. The (new to the township) dude didn't even know it was on the same property as the current facilities ('thought they were poaching on another property) or that the organization had been there for, um...something like 140 years. He ultimately made them take down the sign as a zoning violation unless they paid a whole lot of money for a permit. They declined and made other arrangements.

[Matt Ocel]

Greg Cole -
I'm with you, lighten the moment with humor. I could just see your situation playing out, and at the time it might not have funny, but just thinking about how there was a tense moment and then somebody saying, "The reason is there is no good reason" makes me chuckle. OK LOL!

Jim -
When the inspector came to the job site and wanted you to deveaite from the approved plans, well, there would have been a confrontation, then a call to his/hers superior. If the plans were approved for 2" of concrete, then 2" of concrete it shall be!

I once had a building official and a building inspector doing a final inspection, we were in the basement when the issue of insulating the rim joist in a cantilever came up. The issue had to do with "conditioned space" and wether it had to be insulated/vapor barrier. We all three agreed upon a certian bay cantilever, then we looked at the fireplace cantilever, I asked is the space above the fireplace canilever considered "conditioned space", and at the exact same moment they answered. One said yes the other said no.
All 3 of us laghed.

[Jim Becker]

Matt, if only we could have done that. But there was no "superior"...fired/quit, whatever--the reason the township was using a rent-a-inspector to begin with. Our only appeal would have been to the board which meets once a month, delaying our project already in progress for at least 6 weeks--each time. Appealing the sprinkler would have delayed 6 months and brought the risk of having to retrofit the existing structure which would have been ugly in both work and design...can't put pipes in solid walls. So we just smiled and did what the inspector wanted. (And called him lots of very bad names when he was not around...that, at least, brought some relief...:D) What he wanted was not detrimental to the structure in any way...just to the budget. We were "only" $50K over by the end (yes, "we" made some changes and additions, too) and are very happy with what we ended up with. It's done. It's great. And Zillow finally figured out how much this place is really worth...LOL

[Matt Ocel]

Jim -
I'm glad it worked out in the end for you.


P.S. Don't get me going on Zillow.

[Fred Voorhees]

......... Also, They know on new construction there is a 99% chance that only one layer of roofing will be present and the supproting structure will all be new. You don't know how many layers are on the old roof and what condition the underlying sturcture was in.

Boy do I have a story along this line. A vast number of years ago while I was temporarily laid off from my construction job as an insulator, I went to work for a roofer that a number of my freinds worked for. We were dispatched to this house one morning to do a "tear off", obviously, tearing off the old roof so that a new one could be laid down. Well, little did we know what we were getting into. God strike me dead if that roof didn't have four or five applications of roofing shingles on it! The nails holding down the top layer of roofing (probably the layer or two under that also) didn't even reach the sheathing....just went into other layers of shingles under it. I still can't for the life of me understand how that sheathing stood up to all of that weight.

[Dave Lehnert]

Like that hasn't been tried numerous times by many people...LOL...

These are the same folks who made the church up the road that Professor Dr SMWBO takes the girls to take down a sign for their pre-K child care program. It was in front of the old original church building as it has always been for pretty much as long as we've lived here because it's a very reasonable and visible location to the intersection. The (new to the township) dude didn't even know it was on the same property as the current facilities ('thought they were poaching on another property) or that the organization had been there for, um...something like 140 years. He ultimately made them take down the sign as a zoning violation unless they paid a whole lot of money for a permit. They declined and made other arrangements.

At work I am not permitted to hang a sign banner in front of the store Like "Grand opening" or the like. It had to be made of a rigid material. So if a storm comes up and got torn off, a customer could get hit by a soft banner or a razor sharp piece of metal??? Go figure. Never understood that one.

[Jim Becker]

I hear you Dave. My "issue" with the way that the Church was treated is that the guy was belligerent and didn't do his homework before verbally attacking the pastor...who is one of the nicest women you'll ever meet. They had been allowed to have that sign there for years. Yes, it was not compliant with current zoning, but the dude could have had a bit more tact and helped to work out a solution that worked well for both the organization and the township. Unfortunately, there still isn't a permanent township manager (previous was fired) and the whole building/zoning department is currently contractors, rather than employees.