Yes, it's true that it may not be "recommended" for 3-coat plaster, but is completely acceptable in thin coat applications. The proposed solution is still overkill, in both scope and method. Here in hybrid land, we often make use of items acceptable in one condition, acceptable in other, similar conditions.
Suppose your client wanted to install an additional layer of 1" T & G foam insulation on top of the sheathing and then cover that with 7/8" plaster. Nice design, well insulated. Well, there is not a commercially available weep that can be used in that scenerio, so we need to fab one. And the client also wants to use a topcoat finish that has color in it, but does not want to see the exposed flange nor does he want to have the added hassle of painting it.
So we make use of a perfectly acceptable design, j-metal with weep holes fabbed to the dimensions required. Installed properly, this will more than meet the requirements necessary to keep the design intent of the standard FHA type sill screed.
I know these new terms like "design intent" and "fabrication" may be confusing those who are locked into "what the book says", but you need to realize that that book was written 60 YEARS AGO. Believe it or not, the world is no longer flat, the sun doesn't revolve around us, and there are newer,more efficient, and better designs on the way, so get over it.
Regarding whether the VB is outside the weep flange or under it, it really doesn't affect its performance. Incidential water will drain off
as long as there are weep holes present. In the absence of concrete evidence that there is moisture damage behind it, the stucco should be left in place.
I hope you are taking note of that concept,
Direct Evidence. Because a system that is performing as designed should not be removed. If a concern is raised, like the exposed sheathing edge, or excessive cracking, they should be noted as areas to monitor, not destroy. Simply taking the nuclear response to any and all work that does not conform is irresponsible and you will not convince me otherwise, pithy comments or not.
Lastly, withoud DIRECT evidence of failure, this system should be modified only to prevent future problems regarding possible moisture intrusion, not removed and replaced to satisfy the "keying" element of the design.
My work is done here....moving on....
