Building Consistency Meeting
Residential
Date: 12/2/09 Recorder and minutes prepared by: Danny Wooten/Jeff Griffin
Staff present: Danny Wooten, Ralph Vernon, Morton Robins, David Williams, Russ
Fischer, Gene Morton, Steve Kellen, George Rogers, Steve Pearson, Rob Bock, Ron
Dishman, Tim Taylor, Randy Newman, Walt Nash, Don Sprinkle, Mike Creech, Barry
Human, Billy Yandle, Patrick Biddy, Darrell McAllister.
Public present: Greg Sloan/Hans Kasak (Ryland Homes); Wayne Carter (J&B
Development); Jason Whitener (Southern Tradition Homes); Daniel McBride
(Cunnane Group); Darek Burns (Essex Homes); Bob Mckee (Ryland Homes); Robert
Rampersad (Soto Construction); Dale Coe (Evergreen Group); Eric Kent
(Archadeck); Terry Cleary (meeting street homes); Marcel Papineau (Intelligent
Design Engineering).
Topics/Subject
Decisions/Conclusions/Actions
Old
Business
Smoke
detector status
No change on remodeling issue to use battery only, currently still reads
any work that requires a building permit will trigger a smoke detector
upgrade and they have to be hardwired and interconnected. Still waiting
on final approval from the rules review committee and when approved
we allow the change to battery only.
New
Business
Swimming
pools and gate
latch
Emergency
escape and
rescue
openings
Window
installation
Question was brought up about the mounting height listed in a brochure
the Department has on swimming pool gate latches. The listed
information indicates that all latches must be on the inside of the gate
which is not the intent of the code. This brochure has been corrected the
code, Appendix G, only requires the latch to be on the inside if lower
than a 54” mounting height from the bottom of the gate with 2 other
additional requirements like:
1. Must be 3” lower than the top of the gate
2. No openings greater than ½” within 18” of the latching
mechanism
The Code now requires in section R310.1 that “such openings shall
open directly into a public street, public alley, yard or court”. With this
language in the code there has been some issue raised about an opening
off a master bedroom (as an example) that opens into a roofed over deck
or porch. As long as the deck is not screened in or enclosed with
windows (sunroom) this is being looked at as open and is allowed.
Guards are allowed and still considered open.
There is a question that has come up related to an issue from another
Code authority and how to treat the gap between a window/door frame
and the rough stud opening. Information shared was that another
jurisdiction may be requiring this gap to be caulked or foam filled only
based upon the air leakage requirements listed in section N1102.4.1.
This is not a new section and reads:
NII02.4 Air leakage.
NII02.4.1 Building thermal envelope. The building thermal envelope shall be sealed to
limit infiltration. The sealing methods between dissimilar materials shall allow for
differential expansion and contraction. The following shall be caulked, gasketed,
weatherstripped or otherwise sealed with an air barrier material, suitable film or solid
material.
3. Openings between window and door assemblies and their respective jambs
and framing.
Non-required
handrail /
Guard
installation
Builder
certificate
Typically this seal in the thermal envelope has been by caulking the
brick mould or nailing fin of the product being installed which seals and
prevents air leakage, the remaining gap between the window frame and
the stud frame is just part of the wall cavity and can be packed out with
insulation accordingly.
Question was asked about having to meet the requirements of handrails
under section R311.5.6 of the code or guards under section R312 when
they are not required (less than 4 riser stairs for handrails and 30”or less
drop off for guard protection). Due to a safety issue on stairs when they
are built they must conform to the code for safety this includes:
headroom, tread depth, riser height, handrails, etc… So any handrail on
a stair must be at the correct mounting height and capable of supporting
required live loads. Guards that are not required can be built to any
specification and would not be regulated, example discussed had to do
with a slab home that has a front porch that is 4-10” off the grade and
decorative guards are installed for traditional look or a modern design,
these guards could be at lower height and have openings that exceed the
opening limitations under section R312.2 since not regulated.
Reviewed the requirements of the new builders certificate, this is still an
issue that builders are failing for and some that have not heard of the
new requirement. The Department continues to get this information out
and that is a requirement at final inspection on all residential sites (new
homes) permitted after January 1st 2008.
Building Consistency Meeting
Residential
Date: 11/4/09 Recorder and minutes prepared by: Tim Taylor/Jeff Griffin/Gene Morton
Staff present: Eddie Prince, Gene Morton, Jeff Griffin, Harold Sinclair, Steve Kellen,
George Rogers, Morton Robins, Steve Pearson, Rob Bock, Ron Dishman, Dave Ries,
Tim Taylor, Ron Featherstone, Russ Fischer, Andrew Demaury, Randy Newman, Walt
Nash, Ralph Vernon, Greg Walsh, Patrick Biddy, Ken Turull, Don Sprinkle, TW
Anthony, Steve Honeycutt, Mike Creech.
Public present: Greg Sloan (Ryland Homes); Dave Reynolds (Bldrs, 1st source);
David R. Schwieman (DR Schwieman, Inc); Wayne Carter (J&B Development); Jason
Whitener (Southern Tradition Homes); John Meeks (Apple Blossom Insulators);
Daniel McBride (Cunnane Group); Darek Burns (Essex Homes); Bob Mckee (Ryland
Homes); Adam Kuhn/Robert Rampersad (Soto Construction).
Topics/Subject
Decisions/Conclusions/Actions
Old
Business
2012 Code
update
The next Code version is underway and some work has been completed,
a short review of those items was discussed to include the following:
• 30% increase in energy efficiency of the home
• Garage separation requirements increasing
• Sprinkler systems moving forward for townhouses, houses
currently on hold
• Carbon monoxide detectors being added to the Code
New
Business
Combustion
air/mechanical
rooms
Recent issue concerning mechanical equipment rooms in residences has
come up; this is related to combustion air for these gas appliances. In
the picture above there is a HVAC boot in the ceiling line that is open to
the attic to bring in air in addition there will be a grilled or register in
the wall to draw air from habitable space. Although this will meet the
mechanical code it would be in violation of the residential code and
break the thermal envelop by bringing in air from the attic that
Subgrade
verification
form
communicates to this room and into the rest of the house. This room
would have to be insulated to include the floor if on the 2nd or 3rd floor
level and the grille through the wall would not be allowed.
Issue came up in regards to alteration to the Department’s subgrade
verification form, this form can only have its letter head information
modified the required information within the body of the form cannot be
modified, an example of a modification recently received is shown
below with the correct form that is available from our website
(www.meckpermit.com) also shown, subgrade forms are required on all
fill lots and any site that tested poorly per inspectors instructions.
Wood stove
installation
Detached
fireplace and
clearances
Pool barriers
with existing
fencing
Sheathing
inspection
Builder
certificate
Question asked about using an adjacent property owner’s fence to meet
part of the pool barrier requirements of the code. As long as the
neighbors fence is compliant with the barrier requirements of the code it
can be used, if this fence is ever removed it would be the responsibility
of the pool owner to install another compliant barrier in its place.
Question was asked as to what is inspected during a sheathing
inspection. Sheathing inspections are optional for builders that would
like to move forward with their exterior cladding prior to full framing
but recent concern has been what has to be in place for viewing related
to windows and doors. Inspector will check wraps (secondary barriers),
flashing, bolt on lintels and window/door installation during a sheathing
inspection. All windows and doors have to be set (at least the frames) at
time of sheathing inspection.
Question was asked about the need for an address to be on the new
required builder certificate. Section 1101.8 doesn’t require the address
to be on the label just the information indicated below shall be on a
permanent label. The follow up question was related to what is
permanent, noting that standard paper will not work for that application.
Information needs to be produced on a sticker or heavier card stock that
will last and posted accordingly.
Building Consistency Meeting
Residential
Date: 10/7/09 Recorder and minutes prepared by: Danny Wooten/Jeff Griffin
Staff present: Eddie Prince, Jeff Griffin, Harold Sinclair, David Williams, Steve Kellen,
George Rogers, Morton Robins, Steve Pearson, Rob Bock, Danny Wooten, Ron
Dishman, Dave Ries, Tim Taylor, Darrell McAllister, Ron Featherstone, Russ Fischer,
Andrew Demaury, Randy Newman, Walt Nash.
Public present: Greg Sloan (Ryland Homes); Dave Reynolds (Bldrs, 1st source);
David R. Schwieman (DR Schwieman, Inc); Wayne Carter (J&B Development); Jason
Whitener (Southern Tradition Homes); Kevin Ratcliff (Griffin Masonry); Charlie
Sofinowski (M/I Homes); John Meeks (Apple Blossom Insulators); Jeff Sams (Jordan
& Skala Engineers); Daniel McBride (Cunnane Group); Darek Burns (Essex Homes);
Rod Spence (Banister Homes); Eric Kent (Archadeck).
Topics/Subject
Decisions/Conclusions/Actions
Old
Business
Smoke
Detector
update
Building Code Council has reviewed in its residential standing
committee language related to smoke detectors and the current
requirement to upgrade and hardwire/interconnect on existing structures
when a building permit is pulled for any reason. The concerns with the
current language revolve around access and the burden on hardwiring
these new devices. The code amendment that has been introduced and is
out for public comment still has the requirement for smoke detector
upgrades but allows battery only units to be installed. This code change
proposal is still in process but seams to have favorable support. At best
this process would still have 6-7 months before final approval and
changes could be allowed in the field. We will continue to keep the
industry advised as to the progress of this amendment.
New
Business
Guard
requirements
A formal interpretation is being worked up in regards to guard
placement and where to measure the 30” drop off. The 2012 code will
have specific language that properly identify this application per the
illustrations listed below which is the current way the Department has
been looking at guard requirements:
In the illustration above if fixed seating is installed as shown then guard
will need to be raised to 36” above seating. The center illustration
shows how to measure to elevated floor to an exterior grade, there is a
36” horizontal projection issue so if within 36” it drops more than 30”
below the upper floor a guard is required. The far right illustration show
a grade consideration on the side of stairs that applies that same 36”
horizontal projection, if more than 30” within 36 horizontal, in this off
the first tread (standing/walking surface) then a guard down that side of
the stairs would be required.
Foundation
wall least
dimension
Concern brought up about a basement foundation wall adjacent to
higher garage floor that started off as a 10” poured concrete wall and
then transitioned to a 6” or less foundation wall for the last couple feet
above the garage slab floor. The top portion of this wall that is 6” or less
has the anchor bolts installed for basement walls and will support the
wood floor assembly. This transition point from a 10” poured wall to
less than 6” is a weak point in the wall assembly. Currently the
Department will look at these application as a worse case scenario with
the wall being the least dimension in thickness as if built all the way up,
if that least dimension will meet the foundation table it will be allowed
or the wall will need to be engineered.
Crawl
foundation wall
with more than
48” of
unbalanced fill
One current concern with the language listed in the code has to do with
the amount of backfill you can place against a foundation wall on a
crawl space application that is not supported at the bottom end per the
code in section R404.1 item #1. The language in this section along with
section R404.1.3 would require on a typical crawl space that no more
than 48” of unbalanced fill can be placed against these walls. If more
than 48” of unbalance backfill is installed then engineering design
would be required. Currently section R404.1 listing what is lateral
support, which is new to the code, is in the process of being removed to
allow traditional foundation installation including bolt spacing. This
change has not been approved yet and if approved may be 6-9 months
out.
Prefab stair
stringers
Issue discussed concerning prefabricated stairs and the manufacturers
requirement for stair stringer to be nailed to studs at 16”o.c. spacing per
their installation instructions. These types of stairs cannot be placed in a
situation where the stair stringer is in span but is required to be support
along both sides with adjacent wall framing. Issues have come up on
several jobsites, mainly in a bonus room over a garage application,
where they span from landing to floor level. Manufacturer’s installation
instruction on proper application and support of these factory built stairs
must be followed, picture below is a sample illustration of the issue:
Non-vented
vaulted ceiling
rafter cavities
Issue discussed related to rafter cavities on a non-vented cathedral
ceiling line where it is packed out with high density cellulose insulation
as pictured below:
The code currently doesn’t recognize this application except as a
conditioned unvented attic assembly under section R806.4 with the
insulation product having to meet ASTM E 283 “air-impermeable”.
Cellulose has not been tested to that standard and is currently not
allowed in a sealed application. All rafter cavities currently must be
vented per section R806.1.
Builder
certificate
We are currently enforcing the new requirements under the NC 2009
residential code related to a builder certificate. This is a permanent label
that the builder (not the insulation company) is required to post on site
at 1 of 3 approved locations at final inspection. This applies to all homes
permitted on or after July 1st, 2009. The Department has worked up a
sample certificate and has been spreading this information within the
industry for the last year, attached below is a copy of that sample:
Foam
insulation in
attics and crawl
spaces
On June 3, 2009 the International Code Council Evaluation Service Inc. held a
hearing regarding the new Acceptance Criteria AC377 for Spray Applied
Polyurethane Foam Insulation. During that hearing the group agreed to adopt
the modified NFPA 286 room corner test as the criteria for Spray Polyurethane
Foam (SPF) used in attic and crawl space applications. This ruling is effective
immediately for all new spray foam insulation products requesting an ICC-ES
report.
All existing spray foam products can continue to be used per their current ICCES report; however the new tougher NFPA 286 test will be required at report
renewal. All existing ICC-ES reports are subject to re-examination one year
from the issue date.
• Between now and June 1, 2010, all SPF insulation products on the
market today will need to meet the tougher NFPA 286 fire test for their
ICC-ES reports to be renewed. Most of the existing products will meet
the new fire test if they are covered with a high quality intumescent
ignition barrier coating at 5 mil dry thickness.
The Department has taken the stand as well as DOI that only ICC evaluation
reports will be acceptable for approval of the usage of foam in attic and crawl
applications.