SWR Mandatory on all re-roofs

There is a client of mine, the one who had to have the deck re-nailed, is still having problems as far as the installation of the other materials.

On his invoice, he has SWR installed, however, it was installed over the underlayment, as per the State code and the manufacturers directions.

IN 2007, there was an amendment to the code that any home being re-roofed that had a value over 300K had to have wind mitigation features added (re-nailing, SWR, gable end bracing). It appears as though in 2008, the City of Tamarac decided that no matter what the value of the home, the nailing and SWR had to be added as per this form.

I wonder what other cities have adopted this?

Did you give him credit?

I would not. :frowning:

That isn’t the point.
The point is, that a majority, if not all roofs installed, at least in Tamarac, are not code compliant, which creates a whole new set of problems.
A $300.00 SWR credit is the least of their worries, more precisely, the roofers worries.

This roof, after the homeowner talks to the city official again, will have to be completely torn off and redone, again!

WHAT!!! You’re not serious.

The code states that manufacturer’s specifications supercede code. The manufacturer’s specifications for roofing products usually state that local code supercedes. So, you can’t look to either one for help. If it passed inspection, the county/city will probably say that there is no issue.

Why wouldn’t I be?
The homeowner is an attorney and has become fast friends with the local code official.
He has had three different roofers examine the roof, and all agreed with my original opinion.

It may be wise for this particular roofer to either settle for a monetary amount or to re install the roof properly.

I added to my post. Did it pass inspection?

It isn’t finished yet.
And, just because it passed inspection, doesn’t mean that the final can’t be revoked. Especially when the roof deck re-nailing as well as the SWR are “approved” via affidavit.

Almost every roof on my roof page was finished and finaled. They all had to be redone.

Wow, this is just one more reason why SWR is such a joke. Every municipality and code has a different interpretation. The OIR doesn’t coincide with code. The manufacturer can’t even give you a straight answer as to what = SWR in FL.

To make things even more frustrating, you would assume a NEW CONSTRUCTION home built in 2012 would automatically have SWR right? NOT SO, here in our County, on new construction, tar paper installed in a certain way meets the county’s SWR requirement.

That’s why I say it is nearly impossible to prove SWR on the OIR 1802.

Many have discovered the shingle adheres to the peel n stick membrane on a direct application; hence, the requirement to install it over felt. when it first came out, mfgs discredited the need for felt.

We can add Sunrise to the list who have adopted this code.

Add Miramar to the list.
Almost every other city I checked is operating under the 2007 code which requires a home value of 300K in order for these codes to apply.
Fort Lauderdale needs some clarification. I’ll find out Monday.

As I have them all, I will post them to my website later during the week.

I need to check Eric but I believe Miami Dade County originally adopted but later rejected it. I’ll double check.

Actually, I just checked and in Miami-Dade has in fact adopted it.

So that ought to mean that all reroofs permitted as of… now in those towns should automatically qualify for the credit for #6 SWR on the OIR form provided you can take a photo (or get one ) proving it right? UH OH we are going to PO the reinspector firms.


Now we have examples of A) Cities that have adopted a certain code, which isn’t being followed, and B) The OiR, once again, attempting to rewrite the codes.
By the way, did the insurance companies ever give refunds for all those people who were marked as clips that turned out to be single wraps?:roll:
I guess when the form is changed shortly to reflect what a true SWR is, there won’t even be an “I’m sorry” included. Probably an increase in premium though… to quote Justin Wilson, “I guaranteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”!

It is not a matter of one jurisdiction adopting or not. They are required by state statute too adopt. So the whole state has adopted the requirements of the F.B.C. which as of March 15th is now the F.B.C. 2010.
Re-roofing of existing structures is governed by the F.B.C. Existing Building and does not take into account the $300,000 value.
611.7.2 Roof secondary water barrier for site built single family residential structures
A secondary water barrier shall be installed using one of the following methods when roof covering is removed or replaced:

  1. In either the HVHZ or non-HVHZ regions,
    All joints in structural roof panel sheathing shall be covered with a minimum 4- inch wide strip of self adhering polymer modified bitumen tape applied directly to the sheathing or decking. The deck and self adhering polymer modified tape shall be covered with one of the underlayment systems approved for the particular roof covering to be applied to the roof.
    I won’t quote the whole text but outside the HVHZ the polymer modified tape is not required

You left off the second option that complies with the code, which is a 30 lb felt.

Not in the two cities I quoted. It must be done the way the OiR wants it, by code.
This must be done first in Tamarac:

It was added to the form.
That is why I started this thread and made the comments above, quoted below.

That’s an option only for new construction, which makes no sense.

All cities require SWR on new roofs. What you have to check for is what each city considers a SWR. Many cities allow felt with a 50% overlap.