Building Consistency Meeting
Residential
Date: 4/1/09 Recorder and minutes prepared by: Danny Wooten/Jeff Griffin
Staff present: Ron Featherstone, Jeff Griffin, Tim Taylor, Danny Wooten, Steve Kellen,
Harold Sinclair, Walt Nash, Russ Fisher, Don Sprinkle, Sam Caulder, Steve Pearson, Eric
Brown, Ron Dishman, Andrew DeMaury, Andy Herring, Randy Newman, Steve
Lineberger, George Rogers, David Ries, Patrick Biddy, Mike Jackson, Greg Walsh, Rob
Ellis.
Public present: Hans Kasak/Greg Sloan (Ryland Homes); Charles Sofinowski (M/I
Homes); Bob Mckee (Ryan Homes); Dave Reynolds/Mike Bolt (Bldrs, 1st source);
Wynn Yates (Yates/Starnes Eng); David R. .Schwieman (DR Schwieman, Inc); Wayne
Carter (J&B Development); Brad Crysler (John Weiland Homes); Steve
Corriher/Dennis Adams (CPCC); Daniel Mcbride (Cunnane Group); John Meeks
(Apple Blossom Insulators); Joe Stewart (Stewart Builders); Tony Smith (Hobart
Smith Homes); Scott Dellinger (Dellinger Drafting & Design); Jason Whitener
(Southern Tradition Homes); Rod Spence (Bannister Homes); Rob Merrell (Griffin
Masonry); Dale Sloan (Evergreen Development); Byard Stevens (Johnson Concrete).
Topics/Subject
Decisions/Conclusions/Actions
Old
Business
Appendix M &
Bow stair
treads
The NC Building Council has given final approval to new language for
the code dealing with bow treads and the complete redo of appendix M
as submitted from our consistency team efforts, a copy of each was
handed out and we are currently waiting on the Rules review committee
for an implementation date, we will advise shortly.
New
Business
Insulation
certificate
Discussed the new requirement for builder certification of insulation
and fenestration products by a permanent label. A sample of this label
was handed out and is shown below:
A label will be required on any house permitted after July 1, 2009 and
must be visible at final inspection. We will continue to bring this up as
an issue every month to get the word out to the industry.
Exterior
cladding
secondary
weather
barriers
Residential
plan review
threshold
Plan review cut
off
Basement
insulation
2x4 exterior
handrails on
edge
With the 2009 NC Residential Code all siding or exterior cladding
material must have a secondary barrier of felt or other approved
product. The use of house wraps behind brick veneer is based upon their
ICC Evaluation report and condition of usage, these reports will be used
for their installation. Most have required their vertical and horizontal
seams to be taped. Several of the manufacturers have been getting their
products reviewed for installation without taping as recently supplied in
a new Green Guard product evaluation report; all reports should be
available on site if needed by the building inspector for verification of
compliance.
As of April 1st the residential plan review thresholds have changed
slightly to add accessory buildings over 400 square feet or more than 1
story. Also added any addition of a level to an existing structure will
require review.
Question was asked about a cut off date for residential plan review
before the new code change July 1st, 2009. There is no residential plan
review cut off date and each reviewer will evaluate any last minute
submittals as to if there is time to review and get permitted before the
mandatory date change of July 1st. If review is not possible contractor
will be asked to submit for the 2009 Code.
Question was asked about the new requirements for insulation as listed
in table N1102.1 of the 2009 Code related to basements. We have
reviewed this information with DOI and this is correct. This is the base
information found in the IRC and neither the Residential Ad Hoc nor
the Energy Code Ad Hoc Committee changed this requirement. As
listed in this table basement walls or slab insulation is not required in
Zone 3 which is Mecklenburg County. Although basement walls will
not have to be insulated any crippled wood framed walls used to step
down a basement wall should be treated as any other exterior wood
framed wall with an R-13 requirement.
Question was asked about the use of a 2x4 handrail on the exterior
which is allowed under the exception listed in R311.5.6.3. The specific
application had to do a 2x4 installed on its edge and the graspability of
that rail. The code does not specifically indicate how the 2x4 is to be
installed and the major concern would be that it provides graspability.
One method of providing a compliant product would be to route out the
sides and give an equivalent product to the Type II railing listed in
section in R311.5.6.3 item #2. See commentary and illustration below:
2x4 handrail on edge with
recessed finger areas on both
sides above pickets
Setbacks of a
building
structure from
property lines
Stud under top
plate splices
Question asked about where a building structure is measure from related
to setbacks and the 3’ from a property line listed in section R302. The
requirement does include siding material and cannot be simply based
upon the foundation, allowances must be taken into a count for siding,
windows or trim. Example recently given were 2 new house in a
development that when siding to siding was measure it was 5’-9 1/2”,
the conclusion being that at least 1 wall was closer than 3’ from a
property line and would need to be 1 hour rated.
Question asked about a stud being required up under a splice in top
plates when splices don’t occur over normal stud spacing. The 2009
code has addressed this application and will not require any stud support
simply because of break in the plates. Section R602.3.2 states: “Joints in
plates need not occur over studs”. Application applies to both top plates
in a typical wall construction. This doesn’t prevent the need for
blocking or studs for girder trusses, beams or headers that hit at these
locations (point loads should be picked up and carried to the
foundation).
Building Consistency Meeting
Residential
Date: 6/3/09 Recorder and minutes prepared by: Danny Wooten/Jeff Griffin
Staff present: Jeff Griffin, Tim Taylor, Danny Wooten, Steve Kellen, Harold Sinclair,
Walt Nash, Russ Fisher, Mike Brown, Ron Dishman, George Rogers, David Ries, Mike
Jackson, Greg Walsh, Gerald Barnes, Ken Turull, David Williams, .
Public present: Hans Kasak (Ryland Homes); Bob Mckee (Ryan Homes); Dave
Reynolds/Joe Stewart (Bldrs, 1st source); Wynn Yates (Yates/Starnes Eng); David R.
.Schwieman (DR Schwieman, Inc); Wayne Carter (J&B Development); Brad Crysler
(John Weiland Homes); Daniel Mcbride (Cunnane Group); Jason Whitener (Southern
Tradition Homes); Rob Merrell (Griffin Masonry); Darek Burns (Essex Homes);
Matthew Klapheke (L&M Homes).
Topics/Subject
Decisions/Conclusions/Actions
Old
Business
Smoke
Detectors
Discussed the requirement for smoke detectors, specifically related to
additions or alterations requiring a Building Permit. We did note that at
the March Building Code Council meeting there was an amendment put
forth to remove the access by crawl, attic or basement language from
the code, this petition was denied (see attached agenda & minutes).
Foundation
lateral support
Issue was discussed again concerning the relationship between section
R404.1.3 and R404.1 as it relates to the requirement for an engineering
design. This language will require that all crawl space walls with more
than 48” of unbalanced fill be engineered. One issue that was brought
up was that the ICC 2009 code may have completely removed some of
the additional requirements under section R404.1 to return the code to
the NC2003 & NC2006 versions. If change has already been approved
at the ICC level (which would apply to our 2012 Code) we will work
with the State to push a Code change amendment through to take early
the removal of these requirements found in the NC 2009 Code (see
attached document).
New
Business
Emergency
egress
openings
The language has changed slightly in dealing with discharge of an
emergency escape and rescue opening. Section R310.1 has added “Such
openings shall open directly into a public street, public alley, yard or
court”. This new language will prevent an egress opening from opening
into a screened in porch, enclosed sunroom or 3 season room. Any
space that is bound by walls, screening, windows or other barriers is
prohibited. This will not prevent the discharge to an open porch (no
screening) with or without guards.
Residential
sprinklers
Question asked about the status of residential sprinkler system (13D) in
new home construction. The Building Code Council has not addressed
this issue at this time and would have to start probably some time in mid
2010 to role out in the 2012 Codes. There may be a proposal back
before ICC in the 2009/2010 code development cycle that could affect
the outcome of what the State does with sprinkler systems in residential
single family homes. We will continue to monitor any proposals made
to ICC and advise of any changes at the State level.
Plan Review
deadlines
Deadline for residential plan submittal using the 2006 was June 12th,
2009. All plans will need to be submitted at this time based upon the
issuance of a new permit under the NC 2009 residential building Code.
The Department is in the middle or a re-organization effort to include
both office and field staffing. Several options are currently being
discussed among task force committee members, made up of both staff
and industry representation. How services might be delivered in the
future will be discussed at the next consistency meeting along with
dates for public meetings on these efforts will be announced.
Department
re-organization
Stud spacing
Table
Question asked about the maximum stud height allowed under the code.
Table R602.3(5) indicates a maximum of 10’ for all bearing situations
and longer lengths for non-bearing. The text in R602.3.1 would indicate
that as well with 2 exceptions noted. Please note that the reference in the
text under R602.3.1 to Table R602.3.1 is an error that will be posted
shortly by the State as an errata. The correct listing should be “Table
R602.3 (5)”. There is an allowance for some areas in the State of NC to
use Table R602.3.1 for longer lengths of studs in bearing walls but it
was also noted that the footnote applications will limit the areas this
table can be used (see footnote b under table R602.3.1).
Proposal made at the March 2009 BCC meeting dealing with
smoke detectors
Item B – 3 Request by Robert Privott, NC Home Builders Association, to
amend the 2009 NC Residential Code. The proposed amendment is as follows:
R313.2.1 Alterations, repairs and additions. When alterations, repairs or additions
requiring a building permit occur, or when one or more sleeping rooms are added or
created in existing dwellings, the individual dwelling unit shall be equipped with
smoke alarms located as required for new dwellings; the smoke alarms shall be
interconnected and hard wired. Exceptions:
1. Interconnection and hard-wiring of smoke alarms in existing areas shall not be
required where the alterations or repairs do not result in the removal of
interior wall or ceiling finishes exposing the structure, unless there is
an attic, crawl space, or basement available which could provide
access for hard-wiring and interconnection without the removal of
interior finishes.
2. Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings, such as the replacement of
roofing or siding, or the addition or replacement of windows and doors,
or the addition of a porch or deck, are exempt from the requirements
of this section.
BCC vote:
Item B – 3 Request by Robert Privott, NC Home Builders Association, to
amend the 2009 NC Residential Code. The proposed amendment is as follows:
R313.2.1 Alterations, repairs and additions. When alterations, repairs or additions
requiring a building permit occur, or when one or more sleeping rooms are added or
created in existing dwellings, the individual dwelling unit shall be equipped with
smoke alarms located as required for new dwellings; the smoke alarms shall be
interconnected and hard wired.
Exceptions:
1. Interconnection and hard-wiring of smoke alarms in existing areas shall not be
required where the alterations or repairs do not result in the removal of interior wall
or ceiling finishes exposing the structure, unless there is an attic, crawl space, or
basement available which could provide access for hard-wiring and interconnection
without the removal of interior finishes.
2. Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings, such as the replacement of
roofing or siding, or the addition or replacement of windows and doors, or the
addition of a porch or deck, are exempt from the requirements of this section.
Motion – David Smith/Second – Alan Perdue/Denied – The Petition was
denied. This item was sent to the Residential Committee for review.
____________________________________________________________________
Foundation issues
R404.1.3 Design required. Concrete or masonry foundation walls shall be designed in
accordance with accepted engineering practice when either of the following conditions
exists:
Item #2-
Item #2 creates an issue
with foundation tables
2. “Walls supporting more than 48 inches (1219 mm) of unbalanced backfill that do
not have permanent lateral support at the top and bottom”.
R404.1 Foundation and retaining walls. Foundation walls that meet all of the following
shall be considered laterally supported:
1. Full basement floor shall be 3.5 inches (89 mm) thick concrete slab poured tight against the
bottom of the foundation wall.
2. Deleted.
3. Bolt spacing for the sill plate shall be no greater than 36 inches (914 mm).
4. Deleted.
5. Where foundation walls support unbalanced load on opposite sides of the building, such as a
daylight basement, the building aspect ratio, L/W, shall not exceed
the value specified in Table R404.1(3). For such foundation walls, the rim board shall be attached
to the sill with a 20 gage metal angle clip at 24 inches (610 mm) on center, with five 8d nails per
leg, or an approved connector supplying 230 pounds per linear foot (3.36
kN/m) capacity.
Issue according to R404.1.3 the Foundation tables in Chapter 4 cannot be used if
more than 48” of unbalanced fill unless they meet the requirements of R404.1.
Conclusions:
• Foundations (basements or crawl) that have 48” or less of unbalanced fill or
less only have to meet the base foundation anchor requirements of section
R403.1.6 of 1’ off corners and every 6’ o.c. spacing and the specific lateral
support requirements listed in R404.1 do not apply.
• Foundations (basement or crawl) that have more than 48” of unbalanced fill
must meet all the requirements of R404.1 unless engineered. Problem is that there
is a slab requirement against the base of a basement wall and nothing for the
typical crawl space applications. So a slab would need to be poured in a crawl or
and engineer would be required for crawl space walls with more than 48” of
unbalanced fill since not lateral supported at the bottom end. Option is needed for
crawl space walls to prescriptively use tables above 48” of unbalanced fill, this
could be added to item #1 or item #2 could address the issue.
Building Consistency Meeting
Residential
Date: 5/6/09 Recorder and minutes prepared by: Danny Wooten/Jeff Griffin
Staff present: Tim Taylor, Danny Wooten, Steve Kellen, Harold Sinclair, Walt Nash,
David Williams, Eric Brown, Ron Dishman, Andrew DeMaury, George Rogers, David
Ries, Michale Johnson, Greg Walsh, Mike Jackson, Barry Human.
Public present: Hans Kasak (Ryland Homes); Charles Sofinowski (M/I Homes); Bob
Mckee (Ryan Homes); Dave Reynolds (Bldrs, 1st source); Wynn Yates (Yates/Starnes
Eng); Wayne Carter (J&B Development); Dennis Adams (CPCC); Daniel Mcbride
(Cunnane Group); Jason Whitener (Southern Tradition Homes); .
Topics/Subject
Decisions/Conclusions/Actions
Old
Business
None
New
Business
Smoke
detectors
addition on
existing
structures
The language listed in section R313.2.1 has changed slightly on existing
structures requiring upgrade of smoke detectors. This will be reviewed
at the next consistency meeting due to additional items of concern being
brought up related to installation. The changes are related to existing
dwellings and the wording clearly states in the 2009 when a “building”
permit (previously stated any permit) is pulled the smoke detectors have
to be brought up in the house. So interior remodeling or kitchen
remodeling resulting in a building permit will require upgrades per
section R313.2.1. There are 2 specific exceptions under this section
dealing with exterior applications and access.
R313.2.1 Alterations, repairs and additions. When alterations, repairs or additions requiring a
building permit occur, or when one or more sleeping rooms are added or created in existing
dwellings, the individual dwelling unit shall be equipped with smoke alarms located as required
for new dwellings; the smoke alarms shall be interconnected and hard wired.
Exceptions:
1. Interconnection and hard-wiring of smoke alarms in existing areas shall not be required where
the alterations or repairs do not result in the removal of interior wall or ceiling finishes exposing
the structure, unless there is an attic, crawl space or basement available which could provide
access for hard wiring and interconnection without the removal of interior finishes.
2. Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings, such as the replacement of roofing or
siding, or the addition or replacement of windows or doors, or the addition of a porch or deck,
are exempt from the requirements of this section.
Walking
surfaceretaining walls
and guards
Question asked about the requirements for guards on retaining walls, the
2009 Code has no additional language that deals with this application
but DOI has issued a general interpretation and the Department has
given additional specific information on how to deal with this
application. A formal interpretation was issued under the 2006 Code
and will be updated for posting with the 2009 Code changes. See
attached formal interpretation issued by the Department.
Plan review cut
off
Residential Services has established a cut off for plan review submittals
under the NC 2006 Code. Plan review will no longer accept plans after
6-12-09 under the current version of the code, all plans after this date
should reflect the 2009 code changes.
Code
enforcement
re-organization
Information was discussed concerning the Departments efforts to reorganize and change some of the current processes to include field
inspection operations. Several areas are being identified for further
study to include the possibility of multi-trade inspectors on residential
sites. Information and BDC contacts were mentioned for Builder input
on these initiatives. There will be a public meeting and updates on these
efforts will also be discussed at the Charlotte HBA and future
consistency meetings. Your input is valuable in deciding the outcome of
how services will be provided in the future.
Brick veneer
on supported
on triple rafters
Question asked about attached detail on brick veneer support on triple
rafters and how this is to be attached.
Under the NC language dealing with this section the illustration is not
correct and an alternate was proposed that did not make it print. We will
check with the State to see if an errata can be issued related to the
Figure above. To address the questions, in NC there is no requirement in
this text to fasten the lintel to adjacent wall studs, full support is from
the triple rafters (trusses must be designed for that additional load). In
addition the longer leg of the lintel is laid flat (horizontal) instead of the
typical vertical installation, picture doesn’t match text related to that
installation as well. No specific nailing in given in this detail but the
fastening schedule Table R602.3(1) has a “built up girder and beams, 2inch lumber layers using 10d nails. Nailing each layer as follows:
32”o.c.at top and bottom and staggered, Two nails at ends and at each
splice”.
Column
attachment top
and bottom
Issue came up about having to secure columns at the top and bottom,
no fastening schedule is given for these attachments but per Section
R407.3 which has changed slightly it does require restraint:
R407.3 Structural requirements. The columns shall be restrained to prevent lateral
displacement at the top and bottom ends. Wood columns shall not be less in nominal size
than 4 inches by 4 inches (102 mm by 102 mm) and steel columns shall not be less than 3inch-diameter (76 mm) standard pipe or approved equivalent.
Anchors at
basement wall
Question asked about anchors on basement walls per section R404.1.
This is a new requirement for these walls and addresses an increase
bolting requirement, band attachment, lateral restraint at bottom end and
an unbalance load across the depth of the home along with an aspect
ratio table. This section of the code has additional implications related
to crawl space walls and will be discussed in detail at next consistency
meeting. For basement walls with more than 48” of unbalanced fill they
will need to have anchors at 36”o.c. spacing.
CODE
INTERPRETATION
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
CODE:
2006 NC RESIDENTIAL CODE
SUBJECT:
RETAINING WALL GUARDS
Building Code Enforcement
REVIEWED: RESIDENTIAL CONSISTENCY TEAM
Question:
Are guards required on retaining walls that have more than a 30” drop off to a lower
grade level?
Code reference:
Section R312.1
Answer: Yes, if part of an egress path or along other dedicated walking surface
DOI interpretation:
“The 2006 NC Residential Code, Section R101.2 states; “Accessory structures are not required to meet the provisions of
this code except decks, gazebos and retaining walls as required by Section R404.1.3.” The NC commentary for this code
section states; “All decks and gazebos require permits along with retaining walls per section R404.1.3.”
In accordance with the above, and R404.1.3, it is my opinion that the following residential retaining walls require design
and are therefore required to be permitted:
1. All retaining walls with an unbalanced condition exceeding 48 inches
2. All retaining walls that cross over property lines
3. All retaining walls that support buildings and their accessory structures
The NC Residential Code, Section R312.1 states; “Porches, balconies, or raised floor surfaces located more than 30
inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards ...... in height.” The NC commentary for this section
states: “The guard provisions of this code address the issue of providing protection for occupants from falling off of any
elevated walking surface.”
It is my opinion that guards (complying with R312) must be included on any of the above mentioned retaining walls when
the finished area on the high side of the wall is more than 30 inches above the grade below and part of an egress route or
other dedicated walking surface”.
In addition if the egress route or dedicated walking surface (not grass, but could include-concrete, gravel,
pavers, wood walkways, etc…) is within 36”of a retaining wall meeting the requirements as listed above, a
guard will be required. To not be considered adjacent to a retaining wall there needs to be at least 36” or
greater level grade separation between the retaining wall and walking surface as illustrated below and can
be made up of grass area or mulch bed with plantings. A steep grade associated with the walking surface
where someone stepping off and cannot regain their balance will require a guard regardless of separation
distance.
(no guard required)
Approved By ___Gene Morton_______
F:\CORE\CORESUP\KATHY\GENE\CDEINTRP\wythe.doc
(Guard required)
Date _______8/18/08_______________