Building Consistency Meeting
Residential
Date: 4/21/2005
Recorder: Danny Wooten, minutes prepared by: Jeff Griffin
Staff present: Jeff Griffin; Gene Morton; Danny Wooten; Ron Dishman; Harold
Sinclair; David Morton; Steve Kellen; Eric Brown.
Public present: Mike Mcgee/Doc Mcgee (Mcgee Bros); Frank Burke (Grimmer-Kempf
& Assoc); David Schwiemon (Public); Hans Kasak (Ryland Homes); Daniel Mcbridge
(The Cunnane Group); Bob Mckee (Ryan Homes); Dave Reynolds/Toby Brundage
(Builders First Source) James Welsh/Stu Jelenick (BRI of CLT); Clint Hill/Tim
Rosmon/James Kirkland/Rob Merrell (Griffin Masonry); Evan Weiss/Terry Cleary
(Meeting Street); Rick Lauer (Turnberry Homes); Steve Corriher (CPCC); Chad
Nelson (Shea Homes); Wayne Carter (Mulvaney Homes); Bob Otto (NARI); Shawn
Polakiewicz (Saussy Burbank).
Topics/Subject
Decisions/Conclusions/Actions
Old
Business
Poly Vapor
Barrier
SHGC for
windows
Discussed this issue again and current status, because the Council has
made final approval in March it now goes to the Rules committee which
is the last step for adoption. This should go to them on June 1st with
possible final adoption at that time which would allow the removal of
vapor barriers on wall insulation for all products. We will revisit this
issue in June and check the final approval at that time.
This is an issue that will be discussed almost monthly as we get closer
to the Code Change due to the impact on the industry and the need to
get the word out. This will require windows to be low E glass with an
exception for as must as 15 square feet that will not have to meet SHGC
(solar heat gain coefficient). There is an exception for doors and door
sidelights that do not have to meet SHGC. This requirement will effect
only windows including customs. There will be a time frame established
by the Building Code Council that allows mfg and dealers to work down
their inventories which will either be mid year or end of year in 2006.
We will notify at that next consistency meeting as to the established cut
off.
New
Business
Smoke
detectors
Discussed the change in the code where electrical inspectors no longer
have the smoke detector requirement listed in their code it is listed in
section R317 of the Code. This is more of an administrative change in
dealing with who enforces and looks at. As far as the wiring is
concerned that is an electrical inspection issue. Placement of smoke
detectors and how many needed will be enforced by Building Inspectors
which in the past had been enforced by Electrical Inspectors. Some
inspectors may ask for installation instructions like listed below, which
a copy should be kept at each jobsite in case information is requested
for a specific brand.
Anchor bolt
Code change
The building Code council has approved a change in the Anchor bolt
spacing dealing with splices in mudsills. This no longer requires that
there be a bolt within 12” of the ends of these splices and only requires
1’off corners and every 6’ for bolts (straps still need to follow mfg
spacing requirements). This is actual code change language:
House address
numbers
Question came up again about problems in the field related to specific
requirements for house numbers. House numbers must be 4” minimum,
must be installed on a fixed surface on the home itself (front door will
not work), and must be on a contrasting background so easy to see. Any
questions about house numbers, location or backgrounds installed on
should be discussed with the field inspector. Mecklenburg has this
formal interpretation on our website at www.meckpermit.com.
Insulation
under
mechanical
platforms
Special care should be taken in all cases not to compress insulation batts
whether they are in walls or ceiling applications. In dealing with
insulation installed under mechanical platforms in attic spaces, the
platform should be built with sufficient height to allow installation
without compression like built down rafter cavities, this also means
deadwood should run parallel with the truss bottom chord or ceiling
joist not perpendicular. See attached information that was obtained
from Johns Manville in which their 10 ¼” batt insulation when
compressed in attic application under a platform that creates a 9” cavity
(2x4 bottom truss chord and 2x6 deadwood extension creates 9”)
becomes a R-28. Special care should be taken to build platform at
Attic access
Townhouse
fireblocking
issue
Holes in
bearing wall
studs
Subgrade
verification
form submittal
Mudsill
overhang on
masonry
foundation
elevation sufficient to not compress batts, R-30 is the minimum
requirement for this area (see chart below).
Question raised about attic access in bonus rooms over garages that
have kneewalls under 5’. There is a specific NC exception for this
installation see underlined exception listed in section R807.1. This
exception is for “concealed areas not located over the main structure
including porches, kneewalls less than 5 feet in height, dormers, bay
windows, etc.. are not required to have access”. This would allow for a
bonus room over a garage (that is the intent of not over main structure
per Building Code Council) that had a kneewall under 60” in height
would not have to have small access doors to these attic areas over
garages.
Issue is still coming up with the new rule on horizontal firestopping as
listed in section R602.8. This issue is new in both the residential and
commercial codes and deals with wood frame construction in concealed
areas where there is a chance fire could spread horizontally in a wall
cavity. This section is related to walls only and is often found in
basements or townhouse construction where there is a double wall
system and a void is found between walls. This requires a firestop every
10’ horizontally in these applications.
Special care should be taken by electricians and plumbers in drilling out
load bearing studs. The diameter of the hole is not typically the problem
but the placement too close to the edge of the stud is very often the
issue. A hole cannot be drilled any closer that 5/8” of an inch from the
edge of a stud per section R602.6. If a hole is drilled closer that 5/8” of
inch from the edge it will be looked at as a notch and in many cases will
exceed the notching requirement (example a 1” hole drilled a ¼” from
the edge is considered a 1 ¼” notch and exceeds the 7/8” maximum
notch allowed for a 2x4, in a 2x6 wall this would not be a problem).
In trying to establish a time frame to have certain documents before
going to the next stage of sites construction we require that the subgrade
form be provided to the field inspector upon his next trip to a site to
pass any open footer inspections. It is the intent for concrete work to not
hold up the inspection if there is a paper delay but it will count as a
penalty inspection if not present at that next inspection. Example: a
footer is poured and turned down without penalty for subgrade form,
then a slab is called in the next week and subgrade form is not ready.
Inspectors are asked to go ahead and do the inspection but will have to
automatically turn down the slab because subgrade was not produced at
this trip and will be a penalty turn down. This will allow concrete, if
ready, to be poured and not leave open slabs or poured basement
foundations that could be affected by weather.
There was a question raised about how much can a mudsill overhand a
foundation before it becomes a problem. Code doesn’t specifically state
that it can overhang but after review and since a bearing stud can be
notched 25% of depth of that required member then certain tolerance
walls
can be allowed for uniformed loads. A mudsill should not sit off a
foundation more than the required stud bearing which includes the
reduction for notching. Example: a 2x4 stud can be notched 7/8” so it’s
reasonable to allow a minor overhand up to 7/8” maximum for
uniformed loads. If there is a concentrated load that is created by girder
floor or roof trusses; steel I-beams or other LVL beams then full
support/blocking is required (no overhangs allowed).
Next meeting is on May 4th in Woods room 1st floor at 8:00am, 700 N. Tryon St.