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.