Painted Exterior stone/brick - InspectionNews

Jeff Eastman · #1 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 04:00 PM

.........

Billy Stephens · #2 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Eastman

Do you guys comment if the exterior brick has been painted?

Or am I over thinking again??

Part1 No.

Part2 Yes

Rick Hurst · #3 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 05:41 PM

Brick Houses - Oldhouseweb.com

BARRY ADAIR · #4 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 07:20 PM

Had one yesterday.
They took all the time and effort to contrast paint the mortar lines and let the siding rot off the house and allow moisture intrusion.
The the HUD folks come by and tag it.
What gives with some people?

Michael Thomas · #5 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 07:56 PM

I note it as an FYI item in the report body. My boilerplate:

--------------

Observation: (FYI) For Your Information, the masonry exterior of this building has been painted:

Analysis: Per the Brick Industry Association (BIA) once painted, exterior masonry will require repainting every three to five years. For additional information on painting brick and other masonry materials see: http://bia.org/bia/technotes/t6.htm.

Aaron Miller · #6 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 03:49 AM

Jeff:

My autotext on this situation would containt two comments; one on the painting and one on the lack of weep holes:

The brickwork on the exterior of the house has been painted concealing historic evidence of the condition of these surfaces. See: http://www.aaronsinspections.com/BIA%20Painting%20Brick.pdf
Blocked weep holes (openings in the mortar joints, typically found at foundation level) in the brick veneer wall structure should be cleared, as per International Residential Code sections R703.7.5 and R703.7.6.
Weep Holes and a Clear Air Space
Wind striking a masonry wall causes a positive pressure on the wetted brick surface. If one can equalize the pressure on either side of the masonry veneer, the force is substantially reduced, hence there is a reduction in the amount of water entering into the wall system.
This “pressure equalization” is accomplished by using a combination of weep holes and having a clear air space directly behind the brick. This cavity needs to act as a chamber; therefore it must incorporate some form of air barrier and also be compartmentalized to obtain optimum pressure equalization. The air barrier can range from simply being the interior backup wall surface (though this can still be quite air permeable) to something achieving better performance using independent membranes adhered to the backup wall.
The air space must be unobstructed. Effort must be made to keep the space clear of mortar when the brick is being laid. A mortar-filled space allows direct routes for water to enter into the backup wall and into the interior of the building, as well as impeding water flow out of the weep holes.
The weep holes also provide a means of drainage for any water that does get past the brick veneer. These are located at the veneer supports, such as at shelf angles or at foundation walls.

Of course some of you, led by JP I suppose, would harp about "grandfathering" or some such bunk regarding the code references. See if you can find the term "grandfathering" in the IRC.

Aaron

Bronson Beisel · #7 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 05:30 AM

I once had a termite inspector at my own home tell me that I had to fill in my weep holes in the brick because they were a potential route for termites. Note that there were not at ground level and could easily be seen and inspected, so you'd know if a termite tube was headed up toward one.

He went on to say that his company wouldn't renew my termite bond if I didn't. I then got on the phone with his office to make sure THEY understood the purpose of weep holes and asked them if they'd want to take care of any rot damage due to water if I did as their inspector said and filled in the weep holes.

They said the inspector was nuts, but I wonder how many other people had filled in the weep holes not knowing what they were there for.

Scott Patterson · #8 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Eastman

Do you guys comment if the exterior brick has been painted?

If so what do you say and why?

No, I do not comment on it.

Quote:

The house is 1971 without weep holes so I'm thinking the paint would prevent water from getting out if it gets behind the brick. Or am I over thinking again??

At one time weeps were not required. As for grandfathering, weep holes can not be "properly" added to a home that does not have them. Unless you remove the brick veneer.

The paint, if it is a Latex paint and most likely it is will not waterproof the wall and it will allow for some respiration of he wall cavity. Keep in mind that older homes without weeps really do not have much if any airspace for air movement.

I have seen very little to no damage from a home not having weeps in it. I really think that it all depends on your location and the weather conditions you have. In the South for whatever reason I have seen hundreds of homes without weeps and have never seen any damage associated to not having them.

Yes, they are a good idea. Yes, they are required by codes. But, if I find a home without them I simply note that they are now required in new construction and that they can not be successfully added to a home that does not have them.

This is a good example of why codes do not always work for everything when doing a home inspection. I do a large number of inspections on home built in the 1800's and early 1900's. Codes work for electrical, plumbing and a few other things, but when it comes to the structure they do not work on older homes.

Billy Stephens · #9 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Eastman

The house is 1971 without weep holes so I'm thinking the paint would prevent water from getting out if it gets behind the brick.

Jeff,

Are We talking about a Brick Home or a Brick Veneer Home?

Aaron Miller · #10 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

No, I do not comment on it.

At one time weeps were not required. As for grandfathering, weep holes can not be "properly" added to a home that does not have them. Unless you remove the brick veneer.

Scott:

That's just plain wrong. Code requires a 3/16" diameter hole. Drill and all that's about $29 at home depot.

Aaron

Scott Patterson · #11 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

Jeff,

Are We talking about a Brick Home or a Brick Veneer Home?

Seeing that it is a 1971 home, I would say it is veneer. I have not seen a solid brick home younger than 80 or so years.

Jim Luttrall · #12 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 10:33 AM

Aaron, how do you drill a hole without also punching a hole in the flashing?

Quote:

That's just plain wrong. Code requires a 3/16" diameter hole. Drill and all that's about $29 at home depot.

Weeps CAN be added, but to do it properly without creating more of a problem would be the trick.

Jerry Peck · #13 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Blocked weep holes (openings in the mortar joints, typically found at foundation level) in the brick veneer wall structure should be cleared, as per International Residential Code sections R703.7.5 and R703.7.6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Scott:

That's just plain wrong. Code requires a 3/16" diameter hole. Drill and all that's about $29 at home depot.

Aaron

Huh? Who's harping on codes? YOU raised the code issue in your autotext.

Quote:

Of course some of you, led by JP I suppose, would harp about "grandfathering" or some such bunk regarding the code references.

You complain about people bringing up codes, then include code in your autotext, then state that codes are "bunk"?

Aaron, you need to attain some consistency in your actions, otherwise, they are meaningless.

Quote:

See if you can find the term "grandfathering" in the IRC.

(bold and underlining are mine)

R102.7 Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

If that is not "grandfathering" in old (existing) structures and stating that they can continue to exist without the changes required by more current codes, I don't know what "grandfathering" is.

I've had the same discussions with Jeff Hooper about "grandfathering", there is legal precedence for it, and it does currently exit.

grandfather

One entry found for grandfather.

Main Entry: 2grandfather
Function: transitive verb
: to permit to continue under a grandfather clause

(Jerry's note: The second one below was outlawed and voided by the civil rights voting act; the first one below is applicable to this discussion.)

grandfather clause

One entry found for grandfather clause.

Main Entry: grandfather clause
Function: noun
: a clause creating an exemption based on circumstances previously existing; especially : a provision in several southern state constitutions designed to enfranchise poor whites and disenfranchise blacks by waiving high voting requirements for descendants of men voting before 1867

Quote:

That's just plain wrong. Code requires a 3/16" diameter hole. Drill and all that's about $29 at home depot.

Aaron, as we have previously discussed on this board, doing that (drilling) is only going to make a bigger problem than doing nothing. If *YOU* recommend or suggest 'drilling weep holes', you are setting yourself up for some major wall tear-downs and rebuilding.

Whoa Nelly! YOU need to start rethinking that.

Aaron Miller · #14 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

[/font][/color]

Huh? Who's harping on codes? YOU raised the code issue in your autotext.

You complain about people bringing up codes, then include code in your autotext, then state that codes are "bunk"?

Aaron, you need to attain some consistency in your actions, otherwise, they are meaningless.

(bold and underlining are mine)

R102.7 Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

If that is not "grandfathering" in old (existing) structures and stating that they can continue to exist without the changes required by more current codes, I don't know what "grandfathering" is.

I've had the same discussions with Jeff Hooper about "grandfathering", there is legal precedence for it, and it does currently exit.

grandfather

One entry found for grandfather.

Main Entry: 2grandfather
Function: transitive verb
: to permit to continue under a grandfather clause

(Jerry's note: The second one below was outlawed and voided by the civil rights voting act; the first one below is applicable to this discussion.)

grandfather clause

One entry found for grandfather clause.

Main Entry: grandfather clause
Function: noun
: a clause creating an exemption based on circumstances previously existing; especially : a provision in several southern state constitutions designed to enfranchise poor whites and disenfranchise blacks by waiving high voting requirements for descendants of men voting before 1867

JP:

Your eloquent perspicacity notwithstanding the term is not to be found in the IRC, JP.

Aaron

Jerry Peck · #15 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

JP:

Your eloquent perspicacity notwithstanding the term is not to be found in the IRC, JP.

Aaron

Aaron,

*THE TERM* is not, HOWEVER ...

... *THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM* is - see repeated code section below:

R102.7 Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

Just like calling someone a butt-hole ... that person does not, in all likelihood, contain the *term* 'butt-hole', however, *their actions* may clearly indicate that they are.

Just an example, mind you, not referring to you that way.

Aaron Miller · #16 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Aaron,

*THE TERM* is not, HOWEVER ...

... *THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM* is - see repeated code section below:

R102.7 Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

Just like calling someone a butt-hole ... that person does not, in all likelihood, contain the *term* 'butt-hole', however, *their actions* may clearly indicate that they are.

Just an example, mind you, not referring to you that way.

JP:

Now, now, JP . . . I thought specificity was your forte. And don't worry about the butt hole implication (or is the inference?). I've been called much worse, even today . . .

Aaron