Thread: Garage ceiling

My inspection yesterday turned up an addition over a garage. 1988 original construction with a plywood ceiling in the garage. Master bedroom addition over. The addition appears to be 1997 vintage.
Am I wrong to call the garage ceiling as a potential problem?

JLMathis

Originally Posted by Jeffrey L. Mathis

My inspection yesterday turned up an addition over a garage. 1988 original construction with a plywood ceiling in the garage. Master bedroom addition over. The addition appears to be 1997 vintage.
Am I wrong to call the garage ceiling as a potential problem?

JLMathis

Nope. Should have a fire separation between the garage and the living space above it.

I agree it needs fire separation. Fire separation does not mean drywall. It means 20 minutes fire resistance. Depending on the thickness of the plywood, it may qualify for the needed fire resistance.

I would call it out and recommend minimum 5/8" drywall since there's living space above.

If the addition was circa 1997, go back to whatever requirements were in effect then and see what the minimum standards were. Around here (GA) we were using the 1995 CABO code and under section 309.2 it states specifically " The garage shall be separated from the residence and its attic area by means of minimum 1/2'' gypsum board (sheetrock) applied to the garage side''.

So, around here, any ole material would not do.

Originally Posted by Michael Bronner

If the addition was circa 1997, go back to whatever requirements were in effect then and see what the minimum standards were. Around here (GA) we were using the 1995 CABO code and under section 309.2 it states specifically " The garage shall be separated from the residence and its attic area by means of minimum 1/2'' gypsum board (sheetrock) applied to the garage side''.

So, around here, any ole material would not do.

I don't agree with going back to an old code when it involves a safety issue.

Report what you find, then report what you recommend it should be under current guidelines and then move on. The key is that you are recommending, not requiring.... Codes, regulations and guidelines change normally because a better way or method is discovered to provide protection.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

I don't agree with going back to an old code when it involves a safety issue.

Report what you find, then report what you recommend it should be under current guidelines and then move on. The key is that you are recommending, not requiring.... Codes, regulations and guidelines change normally because a better way or method is discovered to provide protection.

The old Code is simply a reference point to validate your position and it adds credence to your call for correction. Of course, one always recommends corrections to current, safer standards, when applicable, everyone should know that.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

I don't agree with going back to an old code when it involves a safety issue.

Report what you find, then report what you recommend it should be under current guidelines and then move on. The key is that you are recommending, not requiring.... Codes, regulations and guidelines change normally because a better way or method is discovered to provide protection.

if you are quoting today's standards - I would suggest you not only specify that today's standards require XYZ and that you specify specifications when built required - I suggest putting these items in Bold to make them stand out , sometimes I even use different colors when comparing "A" to "B"

Originally Posted by Dwight Doane

if you are quoting today's standards - I would suggest you not only specify that today's standards require XYZ and that you specify specifications when built required - I suggest putting these items in Bold to make them stand out , sometimes I even use different colors when comparing "A" to "B"

Why even report an old standard? What good or useful purpose does it serve.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Why even report an old standard? What good or useful purpose does it serve.

It gives the seller a way out by saying - see, even the inspector says it IS NOT REQUIRED ... so I ain't gonna do it.

It is best to simply state that current safety standards (i.e., "codes") recognize that the recognized level of safety TODAY is blah, blah, blah and that is what we recommend.

As has been stated, home inspectors cannot REQUIRE anything, they only make recommendations ... so why not make the "safe" recommendation to today's current accepted standards of safety.

The problem with just inspecting to present codes is that buyers something think they are are entitled to have the seller pay for everything we recommend. In PA we are required ti identify Material Defects. Where do you draw the line as to what is a Material Defect?

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

The problem with just inspecting to present codes is that buyers something think they are are entitled to have the seller pay for everything we recommend. In PA we are required ti identify Material Defects. Where do you draw the line as to what is a Material Defect?

That is the universal question facing all home inspectors - What do they deem is a "material defect"?

Set your "material defect" level too high and you will miss writing up a lot of things which your clients may later deem that you should have written up.

Set your "material defect" level too low and you will be writing everything up as a material defect instead of just a defect.

The first thing which the home inspector needs to do is define what a "material defect" is: a) is it something more than $xx; something more than $xxx; something which is "life safety" (then one needs to define what "life safety" is to themselves); something that can cause additional damage (roof leaks), but then basically anything and anything "can" cause additional damage; and the ponderings could continue for a long list until ...

However you decide to word it, don't forget to mention that the code also requires the walls supporting the ceiling to be protected.