It says, “At the minimum meets the 2001 Florida building code OR …”
I do not care what comes after the or, if the roof meets the 2001 Florida building code the roof should get credit.
Can anyone tell me why we must read that ANY other way?
A. At a minimum meets the 2001 Florida Building Code or the 1994 South Florida Building Code and has a Miami-Dade NOA or FBC 2001 Product Approval listing demonstrating compliance with ASTM D 3161 (enhanced for 110MPH) OR ASTM D 7158 (F, G or H), OR FBC TAS 100-95 and TAS 107-95, OR FMRC 4470 and/or 4471 (for metal roofs).
But you knew that
From my understanding the document says this,
Does the roof:
- At a minimum meets the 2001 Florida Building Code
- meets the 1994 South Florida Building Code and has a Miami-Dade NOA or FBC 2001 Product Approval listing demonstrating compliance with ASTM D 3161 (enhanced for 110MPH) OR ASTM D 7158 (F, G or H), OR FBC TAS 100-95 and TAS 107-95, OR FMRC 4470 and/or 4471 (for metal roofs)
A. At a minimum meets the 2001 Florida Building Code or the 1994 South Florida Building Code and has a Miami-Dade NOA or
FBC 2001 Product Approval listing demonstrating compliance with ASTM D 3161 (enhanced for 110MPH) OR ASTM D 7158 (F, G or H), OR FBC TAS 100-95 and TAS 107-95, OR FMRC 4470 and/or 4471 (for metal roofs).
Here are 6 pages of roof tile with a Miami-Dade NOA for the HVHZ
I believe John and Nick are right. In fact, this is how York’s class teaches (interprets) it. Two requirements…1) meets the appropriate Code and 2) complies with one (or two) of the listed Standards. I remember this specifically because this interpretation caused the biggest uproar in the class.
I have heard good news might be coming soon for those who follow this interpretation. I have been told to keep an eye on York’s Course Updates for a change that might reflect more of Christopher’s view on this subject (although, this info did not come directly from York so I do not know true this is). Anyone else hear anything like this?
Just because someone says to interpret this document in a certain way does not change the words. If I wrote you a check for $1000 and told you to interpret it as 10**.**00 would you?
In math you follow the order of operation but this is a sentence without any dividers. As the inspector we should read and answer the question. If I am looking at a roof that meets the 2001 FBC, or heck how about the even newer 2007 FBC, once I get to the OR I should be able to check that box.
good question. where does it say 3 nail minimum for clips?
Unlike your $1000 check example, Question #2 is not as black and white as we would like it. The “and” and “or” in the question can be interpreted different ways. That is why a lot of us are looking for an “official” word. I understand none of these wind mit courses are “official” but from what I have been told, Citizens accepts York’s interpretation and Citizens is doing most of the reinspections. That is one reason why I go with York’s interpretation.
The “Clips” example is more “black and white”. It does not mention the number of nails required. That being said, I make notes and describe what I see (including the number of nails) and let Underwriting make the final decision.
The whole form needs too be changed removing any reference to the building code period and should state exactly what is required
Question #4
straps at every truss 3 nails one side wrapped over and attached with at least one nail to opposite face. I guess that 6 penny finish nails would suffice
Question # 6
gable ends are braced in accordance with 2001 FBC
How the hell would we know unless we have the construction documents for the home as the gable end bracing design was the responsibility of the designer of record. The question should say appears to be
Question # 9
opening protection
Unless your are inspecting in Miami/Dade or Broward Counties even a fully protected home is not going to get any credit because even that newly installed garage door that has a label that says it meets the FBC and it does but unless it is being installed in the HVHZ it is not required too be impact rated unless it has glazed openings. even though the home has newly installed impact window coverings and doors 99.9% of the time the answer to question #9 is D cannot be identified. The poor S.O.B. just spent $8500 on upgrades and he will not get any credits because while the garage door meets the FBC it is not required to be impact rated. That was an inspection from this past friday and boy was he pissed
Thanks for allowing me too rant I feel better now
I’m assuming which you should never do. But I’m just saying.
Becaues no one has posted here I would assume that you are providing discounts that per Form OIR-B1-1802 are not applicaple
We do not provide discounts. We only report conditions we find based on how we “interpret” the questions.
You should only answer the questions as you see them .
1 Like
Mike,
No one listens don’t waste your time, they took a simple insurance inspection and try to make it a government inspection on highly classified document. It is only an inspection, report what you see only, Mike is right.
Exactly, it doesn’t.
dont get me started
OIR NEEDS to change the form. OIR needs to tell everyone authorized to fill it out EXACTLY how under any percievable circumstance it should be filled out given the OBSERVABLE conditions documented by photos and observation at the time of the inspection.
I think it will never happen. I think they are afraid of the liability we are accepting.
When I tool the course, I asked Bill York how I can determine that the shingles actually meet those requirements since there is no way I can do that by looking at them. He said that if the permit date was after March 1, 2002, I could assume that the shingles meet the requirements.
Anyone have a better answer?
I know of no better way. Even though when the 2001 building code went into effect, **most **of the shingles in the state already met the 1994 SFBC
The following are from emails I received from Bill York. I had emailed him with a few questions about Question #2 on the UMVI Form. I am posting this with his permission:
…Currently, can inspectors use only a valid permit (under the SFBC or FBC) to mark Option “A” for Question #2 without obtaining an NOA or Product Approval? [Bill] NO
Or, must we wait for the “white paper” to be published before disregarding NOAs or Product Approvals for roof coverings (when a valid permit is available)? [Bill] Yes…
Here is what he previously said about the “white paper” mentioned above…
[FONT=Arial]We are working on a “white paper” to simplify the work needed for roof coverings. That paper will recommend that a valid permit issued under the SFBC or FBC be acceptable proof of compliance. Until we have agreement from some of the “Major Players” I cannot be sure when it will be published. The document is being circulated now…[/FONT]
For question #1 do inspectors usually go to the building department looking for permits and construction documents or if the home owner doesn’t have it thats it?
We call or email them on every inspection.