***“Based on the statement you can verify the roof covering (notice it does not say whole roof or even roof, it states the covering only) with only a product approval. So the proof of an approved product with proof it is on the roof is all that is needed for item number 2. There is no need to prove that the roof was installed to code (with obvious exceptions).” ***
And those exceptions are? I fail to see your thought process, are you implying that you teach inspectors not to comment when they see something improperly installed, damaged, or non-complaint? Specifically, show me where home inspectors are “prohibited” from commenting on building codes. I only see where we can’t enforce compliance……but you know what I do see? That the administrative code for your license (not the standards of practice) specifically say you must comment on “improper installation or a change in accepted residential construction standards”. Don’t know John, what do you think qualifies as “improper installation” and what would determine this. Also, what do you think meets the definition of a “residential construction standard”?
Licensing laws are written and enforce to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. This also matches the intent of the Florida Building Code. And you are teaching inspectors to ignore it…what do you think would be the issue with that?
You ignore all of this because you want the law to tell you what you can do, and that’s not how laws work. They are meant to tell you what you can’t do. The rules for your license say that you are not limited in any way but your own knowledge and/or expertise. Your license sets the minimum standard, not the maximum. Just one question, if I’m not limited but by my own knowledge and expertise, how exactly does this prohibit any home inspector from commenting on or inspecting components they are deemed qualified to inspect to the minimum requirements of the Florida Building Code?
**
"Roof deck attachment B does not meet the current code(generally) but allows for a discount. "**
We know this, it meets the 2001 Florida building Code. This is why the 2008 ARA stated that FBC homes should be classified in two different categories, pre-2004 FBC and post-2004 FBC (12/2006). Hence, the form asks “year built”. It’s asking “what code cycle do we use, and was it built in compliance with that code cycle”. Connection C doesn’t even meet the minimum requirements of the current FBCR. The form doesn’t need to be changed to do this as it was NEVER intended to be the maximum qualifying document, that’s a title you have given it. This is why when you check 1(a), this section doesn’t get completed. If it did, you would be signaling a building code deficiency if the home was constructed after 12/2006.
Remember a few months back when you were talking about a 2016 home that you gave a “single-wrap” qualification? Now you know this section doesn’t even need to be completed once FBC compliance is determined (you’re welcome). So, I’ll ask, did you go back and correct all of the previous forms you may have improperly completed with a “clip” simply because the attachment was only located on the side of the truss? You vey well may have reduced a qualifying feature by doing that, and this was proven by both an insurer and one of the largest modeling software providers for use with the form.
"Current rules require retrofits in conjunction with a re-roof(under certain circumstances) to add nails/straps/clips. It requires four nails to the truss or rafter and allows attachment to the top of the top plate or tie-beam. The form calls for a minimum of three nails."
No, it does not require 4 “nails” as part of the retrofit, it requires a minimum of four “fasteners” on the original connection ON EACH END to be excluded from retrofit requirements. Retrofit connections are not required to have four fasteners, they are required to be rated for 500fp of uplift. What if the connection uses bolts? Now it needs four bolts? Are nails the only fasteners you will approve?
708.8.1.3 Prescriptive method for gable roofs on a wood frame wall.
Wherever a strap is missing or an existing strap has fewer than four fasteners on each end, approved straps, ties or right angle brackets with a minimum uplift capacity of 500 pounds (740 kg) shall be installed that connect each rafter or truss to the top plate below.
You can add a fastener to an existing strap, but it would still need to be engineered for the uplift to qualify. It’s nice to see you have listened to what I have been telling you for over 3 years, do you plan on going back and correcting all of the previous forms that you completed incorrectly? Like the homes where you did not include the complete roof system perimeter? It’s been your position all along that the insurers are the authority, and your authority has spoken. It includes all roof system perimeters.
.
"Gable roofs; although they may meet current codes no discount is given."
So now you’re a rate variable expert instead of a wind mitigation expert? You have stated previously that “home inspectors are not code inspectors”. Can you show me where they are qualified to determine rate variables for insurance?
What is the actual difference between a hip roof structure and a gable roof structure? If it’s the wall height, do you give second story homes the hip roof geometry? If it’s the eave, do you give all perimeter eaves equal favor, including those over 24” horizontally from the exterior wall or overhangs? Can you provide me with any information that shows homes built in compliance with the FBC will fail at the roof coverings simply due to the shape of the roof in which they are applied? I have plenty of it for pre-FBC roof coverings, just not post-FBC.
Does the Florida Building Commission know you have this information and that they are approving roof coverings that may prematurely fail when installed on specific roof shapes? I have 5 reports that state the exact opposite. They prove that building code compliance was the contributing factor in storm related damages to newer homes in 2004/05. That and existing homes with older roof coverings that failed and became air-borne.
Newer home that were FBC complaint? No damages, even when subjected to winds above their design level. Drink that in for a bit…
There are a few inspectors out there doing it right, they are getting there customers qualifying techniques even thought they have been taught by you that they do not qualify.
"Secondary water resistance is given a discount where secondary water barrier is not."
No John, they are the same. Something your friends don’t know, during the original development process of the form, the Florida Building Commission and the insurance industry worked together to develop Florida Building Code approved methods for this. They were never “separated” until home inspectors got involved. Here’s a question, what typically leads to failure of a roof deck? Water saturation. This being the case, how do you think products that are glued together will perform once they are exposed and saturated? This is why approved secondary water resistance-barriers are required to be above the roof deck, not below it.
If the form was NEVER meant to be the maximum qualifications, or to excluded new and better building practices that are deemed complaint. If it was, can you please explain why seam tape is accepted when it isn’t even listed on the form? Foam adhesive falls below the FBC requirements as it doesn’t protect the roof structure, all FBC approved methods are above or equal to what the form requires. Hence, if your home was built after mandated FBC for SWRB, your home qualifies…
As an example: Two identical homes located side by side, both with the main roof covering removed. One with a foam adhesive Secondary water resistance-barrier located at the bottom side of the roof deck, the other with any Florida Building Code approved method located above the roof deck. Soak each one throughout with water for 12 hours. Remember, the foam adhesive is allowing the water to contact the wood decking. It’s not hard to see what the end result will be, wood decking isn’t meant to mitigate bulk amounts of water, only applied loads.
A Florida Building Code approved method of secondary water resistance-barrier could be soaked for days on end, it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t allow water to access the roof deck like foam adhesive…do you see it now?
And before you say “seam tape is an FBC approved method of SWRB, and it allows moisture to access the roof deck”. No it doesn’t, seam tape does not singularly qualify as a SRWB. It is required to have an approved underlayment installed over top to qualify. This is due to the fact that a existing roof deck is riddled with hundreds of holes from the original roof covering. Sealing the seams, like foam adhesive at the underside roof deck, would do little to prevent water from accessing the interior. Seam tape by itself does not qualify.
Consider this, if an insurer will accept seam tape as an approved method when it isn’t listed on the form, why wouldn’t the others qualify? Specifically, what standard is the insurer using and is it enforceable in our state as equal to or above the FBC? Also, under what authority is an FBC approved method being disqualified? The Florida building Commission is the authority in our state…not the OIR, not an insurer, and most definitely not an underwriter. You are allowing entities with a vested interest in the forms finds to interpret its’ approval……now what would be an issue with that?
***“If it was a code inspection couldn’t we simplify the whole question, meets code or does not.” ***
Says who, you? I’m getting you a dictionary for Christmas John, one with “compliance” highlighted.
"Finally, since when are pictures required to prove code. "
They are used extensively by AHJ’s to prove compliance. It’s complaint, here’s a picture proving such. What is your point? I have never meet anyone who makes things up quite the way you do. You fabricate information that doesn’t exist at a fever pitch. How many times do you need to be proven wrong before you stop and realize you are hurting the industry and Florida families?
Do you even realize what it means when you are wrong about the form? It means there are home owners who potentially pay higher insurance premiums because you or an insurer wanted to decide what did and didn’t qualify. Funny how you think you’re the authority on the forms intent and how it gets completed, yet you can’t even inspect for compliance with an approval or the Florida Building Code per your own admission.