Thread: Framing Passed the Township Inspection

Two engineered I joists with the top flanges cut out and both I joists toenailed to the header, no joist hanger straps used. These passed the township framing inspection today.









Similar Threads:

• passed city inspection
• My place passed an electrical inspection????
• Framing inspection help...
• Framing inspection contract
• Today's Rough-Framing Inspection

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

Two engineered I joists with the top flanges cut out and both I joists toenailed to the header, no joist hanger straps used. These passed the township framing inspection today.

Do you have Dunkin Donuts in PA? (That would explain it)

Not defending the inspection, but do you know that no alterations were made after the framing inspection?

The sequence of inspections should be: mechanical/plumbing/electrical (that order can change, but that is the best order), then, last and most important - the framing.

The reason for doing the framing last is precisely to avoid what you found - HVAC/plumbing/electrical workers should not be given power saws ... ... for the reason shown.

Those framers need to quit putting those floor joist in the way don't they know that those are structural heating ducts and they don't need additional support!!!

I had originally done a pre-drywall inspection on 3/30 and that is how these I joists looked then. The builder rep was there when I pointed this out and he explained the way they repair these types of snafus. But there was so much not even done on 3/30 that the buyer asked me to look at the framing again and today was the day the builder rep told her would be a good day for me to come back. These pics I posted above were from 11am today. I would be surprised if any repairs were made to those joists sometime after 11am and up to 5pm today.

The only "repair" for those is to put new ones in once the top has been cut I have never seen a manufacturer say anything different. I have been there many times with engineered floor system manufacturers reps when they tell the contractor "there is no repair they have to be replaced" they usually only do it once after they get a bill for replacing the joists.

Originally Posted by paul hardy

... they usually only do it once after they get a bill for ...

Strange how so many contractors only "learn" after they had to write a check.

Seems it would be so much better to be open to learning things in a much simpler and less costly manner ... say ... like reading the manufacturer's installation instructions, contacting the manufacturer before cutting things instead of afterward, ... the list of less costly learning is endless - phone calls are much less costly than replacing I-joists and other things.

AMEN!! Jerry, I did a rough inspection the other day and the electrician quit after the manufacture told him that the LVL he drilled about a dozen holes in was not repairable don't know how that one is going to work out.

I forwarded my report to the buyer along with a suggestion that they request the builder to have a field rep for the truss manufacturer come to the site and render an opinion on those joists.

Nick,
Are they using stair treads for the squash blocks? At least that is what it looks like with the bullnose on the top side.

Originally Posted by Fred Weck

Nick,
Are they using stair treads for the squash blocks? At least that is what it looks like with the bullnose on the top side.

Those actually would be web stiffeners, squash blocks would be outside the flanges and a little longer than the depth of the joist.

Originally Posted by Fred Weck

Nick,
Are they using stair treads for the squash blocks? At least that is what it looks like with the bullnose on the top side.

That's what it looked like to me Fred. But hey, it passed the township framing inspection so all is well.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

But hey, it passed the township framing inspection so all is well.

Again ... I repeat myself ... maybe it didn't pass the framing inspection.

Which is different than saying that the framing inspection passed.

Do YOU look at EVERYTHING in the house? Of course not.

So why do YOU (and many others here) think that the code inspector looked at EVERYTHING in the house? Of course they did not.

For a code inspector to look at EVERYTHING (which is a wide spread misconception), the cost of a permit fee would have to reflect the cost of having a code inspector on the site AT ALL TIMES when work was being done ... do you have any idea what that permit fee would have to be for a code inspector to be on-site AT ALL TIMES work was being done?

What would YOU charge if you had to be on site at all times work was being done? Think about it and post that amount here - then let us know if you would be willing to pay a permit fee which was that much.

I know what Jeff, I and others used to charge for only being there the times we were, you would not want to have to pay that amount for a building permit fee, and the building permit fee not only has to cover the cost of the inspector, but the vehicle, all overhead related to that permit, etc.

You want to build a 200 square foot addition on the back of your house? No problem - the permit fee is only $50,000.

I received an update from the buyer. She stated that the builder rep told her they have to wait for an engineer to come to the site and tell them what needs to be done to correct the issue. This was information she did not get the first time she talked with the rep so the information she passed along to me was incomplete.

Was this the only item that was overlooked by muni inspector?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Again ... I repeat myself ... maybe it didn't pass the framing inspection.

Which is different than saying that the framing inspection passed.

Do YOU look at EVERYTHING in the house? Of course not.

So why do YOU (and many others here) think that the code inspector looked at EVERYTHING in the house? Of course they did not.

For a code inspector to look at EVERYTHING (which is a wide spread misconception), the cost of a permit fee would have to reflect the cost of having a code inspector on the site AT ALL TIMES when work was being done ... do you have any idea what that permit fee would have to be for a code inspector to be on-site AT ALL TIMES work was being done?

What would YOU charge if you had to be on site at all times work was being done? Think about it and post that amount here - then let us know if you would be willing to pay a permit fee which was that much.

I know what Jeff, I and others used to charge for only being there the times we were, you would not want to have to pay that amount for a building permit fee, and the building permit fee not only has to cover the cost of the inspector, but the vehicle, all overhead related to that permit, etc.

You want to build a 200 square foot addition on the back of your house? No problem - the permit fee is only $50,000.

I received fractured info from the buyer Jerry. No, I don't know what was or was not looked at as part of the framing inspection but since the I joists are part of the house framing (unless they fall under a different category), I would think they would have been included as part of the framing inspection.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Was this the only item that was overlooked by muni inspector?

Well, he apparently made no mention about these foundation anchor bolts still not having washers or nuts installed. Could the builder possibly have has somebody come through and throw washers and nuts on all these bolts between 11am when I was there and the time later that day when the framing inspector was there? Maybe. The only item she said the rep mentioned as not passing the framing inspection is this crap repair attempt on the top of the stud wall in the laundry room. I'll include the before and after "repair" pics for comparison.


Anchor Bolts on 3/30/15 and 4/8/15



Laundry Room Stud wall on 3/30/15



Laundry Room Stud Wall on 4/8/15

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

No, I don't know what was or was not looked at as part of the framing inspection but since the I joists are part of the house framing (unless they fall under a different category), I would think they would have been included as part of the framing inspection.

Yes, the incomplete information from your client didn't help with your information.

And, yes, the joists are part of the framing ... and as you said - you don't know what part the code inspector looked at ... yet you are again implying that the inspector should have looked at what you looked at, apparently the code inspector should look at EVERYTHING ... or at least the same parts YOU look at.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes, the incomplete information from your client didn't help with your information.

And, yes, the joists are part of the framing ... and as you said - you don't know what part the code inspector looked at ... yet you are again implying that the inspector should have looked at what you looked at, apparently the code inspector should look at EVERYTHING ... or at least the same parts YOU look at.

Well, riddle me this Jerry......what framing should the code inspector be looking at? Aren't they looking for code violations? I'm pretty sure the improperly installed I-joists and modifications to said I- joists are code violations. Where does their responsibility end? If they are inspecting the framing, shouldn't they be inspecting all of the framing?

I say all of this with the admission that I am not privy to knowing what they do and do not look at. But when I hear that they inspect the framing, my thought process is that they would inspect all of the framing and not only parts of it. And if they don't inspect certain parts of the framing, why wouldn't they?

Here's an example of the time limitations for code inspectors (seems to be consistent wherever I've been):
Yesterday I did a "combination framing" inspection - that includes electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and framing - and the time frame we have for those 4 inspections is about ONE hour.

I gave my notice to that county on Monday as I don't work that way.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Here's an example of the time limitations for code inspectors (seems to be consistent wherever I've been):
Yesterday I did a "combination framing" inspection - that includes electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and framing - and the time frame we have for those 4 inspections is about ONE hour.

I gave my notice to that county on Monday as I don't work that way.

Some 12 or 14 years ago a building inspector was seen driving by a house under construction on his way to the donut shop, where he filled out his report. It made the local news and gave a black eye to the entire inspection industry. This is where my comment came from about Dunkin Donuts. I believe things are much better now but the building inspectors are given upto 8 inspections to do a day (all inclusive) which in my opinion is unreasonable. That's why we get new home inspections!

Originally Posted by Vern Heiler

Some 12 or 14 years ago a building inspector was seen driving by a house under construction on his way to the donut shop, where he filled out his report. It made the local news and gave a black eye to the entire inspection industry. This is where my comment came from about Dunkin Donuts.

Also years ago, in Miami-Dade County newsreporters videotaped inspectors sleeping in the cars while parked in the shade under trees, and not just for lunch time either, they filled some of the inspectors sleeping for several hours at a time.

I believe things are much better now but the building inspectors are given upto 8 inspections to do a day (all inclusive) which in my opinion is unreasonable.

Only 8 inspections?

At various places I've worked over the past few years we averaged 20-25 inspection, and sometimes there would be 4-5 "combination" framing or final inspections in those 20-25 inspections, which makes for 16-20 inspections just for the combination inspections. I try to keep working as I like doing inspections and I like keeping current on what is going on in the field that way.

At the place I just left, we averaged 12-16 each day, and some were combo inspections.

That's why we get new home inspections!

Absolutely!

Also what keeps my consulting and litigation going too.

OK, they have time constraints. But where does their inspecting responsibility end?

From the Canadian Courts fwiw.

The Supreme Court of Canada also considered the scope of the duty owed in an earlier decision in Rothfield, supra, where the municipal building inspector acted under a by-law similar to the one in the case at bar. According to Rothfield, where a municipality adopts a building by-law for the health, safety and protection of persons and property pursuant to the Municipal Act, the inspector must exercise reasonable care during the course of the permitting and inspection process to ensure the project meets the standards imposed by the by-law.

[89] Returning to the reasons of Bastarache J. in Ingles, the foregoing does not require the inspector to discover every latent defect or every failure to meet code standards. The inspector is expected to act reasonably to detect defects and order them remedied.

An undercover sting in Orlando about 10 years back showed where one inspector averaged 52 inspections a day. He was considered the areas top inspector for the building department. Another inspector for that same AHJ refused to do more than 18 and was fired for it. I read a report once from either SBCCI or the ICC that recommended no more than 17 inspections a day for a building inspector.

I photographed a Boynton Beach City inspector sleeping in his car in the same parking lot at the back for several months and sent the info to the city. He would arrive at 1 PM and stay until 4 PM.

He was fired.

I am a municipal inspector. For a new home that takes over 6 months to build I may be there for three to four hours total. Triple that time or more, it doesn't matter. We can't see everything that has been done and then covered up between inspections.

This morning I spoke to a woman who told me that a portion of the footings had been crushed when the foundation forms were delivered for her new home. No one told me about it when it happened and I didn't see it when I inspected the foundation reinforcement. The CO was issued a month ago.

For the OP; the inspector my have seen it and wrote a correction to have it fixed, but told the contractor to continue because the repair could be seen on the next inspection. I will do that to allow the contractor to continue working; time is money.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

OK, they have time constraints. But where does their inspecting responsibility end?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

From the Canadian Courts fwiw.

The Supreme Court of Canada also considered the scope of the duty owed in an earlier decision in Rothfield, supra, where the municipal building inspector acted under a by-law similar to the one in the case at bar. According to Rothfield, where a municipality adopts a building by-law for the health, safety and protection of persons and property pursuant to the Municipal Act, the inspector must exercise reasonable care during the course of the permitting and inspection process to ensure the project meets the standards imposed by the by-law.

[89] Returning to the reasons of Bastarache J. in Ingles, the foregoing does not require the inspector to discover every latent defect or every failure to meet code standards. The inspector is expected to act reasonably to detect defects and order them remedied.

Here in the States, it is called Sovereign Immunity. Unless the inspector excessively oversteps his/her authority, there is no responsibility.

This was settled in a Florida case which went to the Florida Supreme Court where a city, its building department, building official (and basically everyone below him) was named in the suit. The Court found that the city, its building department, and it personnel are responsible to 'the public' in general, not to a 'specific property owner' as the codes state:
- 101.3 Intent. (bold and underlining are mine)
- - The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Additionally, the court found that if any given owner or association (the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a townhouse owners association), that the owner or association has the prerogative to retain the services of their own qualified representative to verify that the design and construction is as required. That decision (in the 1980s as I recall) lead to the formation of engineering firms which started representing condo associations and such in the turn over of the structures from the developer to the owners - that was a big game changer here in Florida.

That Florida Supreme Court decision has been used as a precedent by many others in limiting the responsibilities of cities/counties/their building departments and employees.

However, if a building official, plans examiner, inspector steps outside the umbrella coverage of that sovereign immunity (by making up their own codes, for example) the city/county they work for may (and has on many occasions) backed away from said person and will not use the city/county attorney to defend that person ... that person has to defend themselves using their own money, the deep pockets are gone.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Here in the States, it is called Sovereign Immunity. Unless the inspector excessively oversteps his/her authority, there is no responsibility.

This was settled in a Florida case which went to the Florida Supreme Court where a city, its building department, building official (and basically everyone below him) was named in the suit. The Court found that the city, its building department, and it personnel are responsible to 'the public' in general, not to a 'specific property owner' as the codes state:
- 101.3 Intent. (bold and underlining are mine)
- - The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Additionally, the court found that if any given owner or association (the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a townhouse owners association), that the owner or association has the prerogative to retain the services of their own qualified representative to verify that the design and construction is as required. That decision (in the 1980s as I recall) lead to the formation of engineering firms which started representing condo associations and such in the turn over of the structures from the developer to the owners - that was a big game changer here in Florida.

That Florida Supreme Court decision has been used as a precedent by many others in limiting the responsibilities of cities/counties/their building departments and employees.

However, if a building official, plans examiner, inspector steps outside the umbrella coverage of that sovereign immunity (by making up their own codes, for example) the city/county they work for may (and has on many occasions) backed away from said person and will not use the city/county attorney to defend that person ... that person has to defend themselves using their own money, the deep pockets are gone.

Which was recently upheld in Barfield v Village of Jupiter Inlet Colony in which I was the towns expert witness through the Florida League of Cities.

This is the case I was referring to, and the case which has been cited as a precedent for other cases, however, other cases are cited in this case as setting precedents for it:

- TRIANON PARK CONDOMINIUM v. CITY OF HIALEAH | Leagle.com

- TRIANON PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC. v. CITY OF HIALEAH | Leagle.com

- https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn...25715B0069DF1E

I offered to take some pics for the buyer of whatever repair the builder made to these two I-joists before they closed everything up. I just ran up to the house and this is what I saw. The same two I-joists still in place, secured to the header by toe-nailing only, no joist strap hangers, no bearing support, and some 2x4s and OSB matrerial spliced in place. I couldn't see much anymore because the area above the joists is now enclosed.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

I offered to take some pics for the buyer of whatever repair the builder made to these two I-joists before they closed everything up. I just ran up to the house and this is what I saw. The same two I-joists still in place, secured to the header by toe-nailing only, no joist strap hangers, no bearing support, and some 2x4s and OSB matrerial spliced in place. I couldn't see much anymore because the area above the joists is now enclosed.

So, they provided you with the Engineering for the repair of this Engineered system, correct?

I would insist on Engineering! And I would tell them as far as you are concerned it will never be right without it!

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

So, they provided you with the Engineering for the repair of this Engineered system, correct?

I would insist on Engineering! And I would tell them as far as you are concerned it will never be right without it!

No, nothing at all. I advised the buyer that she should request something from the builder in writing that this repair is an approved repair that was designed and authorized by a professional engineer or a rep for the truss manufacturer.

Toe-nailing, no joist hangers, no end bearing support, and a bunch of spliced-in pieces. I'd like to see them provide paperwork from anybody who says this is OK.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

No, nothing at all. I advised the buyer that she should request something from the builder in writing that this repair is an approved repair that was designed and authorized by a professional engineer or a rep for the truss manufacturer.

Toe-nailing, no joist hangers, no end bearing support, and a bunch of spliced-in pieces. I'd like to see them provide paperwork from anybody who says this is OK.

Sadly, I have seen far worse passed off by an Engineer. But then being the little prick that I am I just forward it to the Florida Board of Engineers.

Originally Posted by JeffGHooper

Sadly, I have seen far worse passed off by an Engineer. But then being the little prick that I am I just forward it to the Florida Board of Engineers.

To show the difference between Jeff and myself ... ...

Jeff says "But then being the little prick that I am I just forward it to the Florida Board of Engineers.".

Whereas I would say "But then being the nice guy that I am I just forward it to the Florida Board of Engineers.".

I may think it ... Jeff says it ...

A little off topic. Nick, is that fire sprinkler pipe in your first "repair" picture?

Originally Posted by Fred Weck

A little off topic. Nick, is that fire sprinkler pipe in your first "repair" picture?

No. At the time the first pics were taken, there was no plumbing roughed in at all.

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

No. At the time the first pics were taken, there was no plumbing roughed in at all.

I am asking about the orange colored pipe attached to the side of the I-joist in the repair picture.

The orange sprinkler line you are referring to was not there either. No plumbing or sprinkler lines at all.

The buyer sent me a copy of the engineers repair plan for these I joists. Based on the way I am understanding the engineer's letter and repair diagram, it definitely does not appear his directions were followed.

Seems like a lawyer needs to get involved at this step.

Good luck getting the builder to remove and redo without someone pressing him to do so.

Originally Posted by Bill Chinook

Seems like a lawyer needs to get involved at this step.

Good luck getting the builder to remove and redo without someone pressing him to do so.

Which is why I would bring the manufacturer's repair to the AHJ and "confer" with them about what the contractor did (bring the photos) versus what the manufacturer calls for (bring that engineering document).

That is how you can start making good connections and relationships with the AHJ.

The attorneys come when (if) the AHJ does not take action - as you said (well, as you implied): when the AHJ takes action on what is shown to them ... the contractor will have "some 'splainin' to do", as Desi would tell Lucy.

I hate to say it but I agree with Jerry, I would call the AHJ and meet. As far as Lucy and Reeecky...well that's another story.

- - - Updated - - -

I hate to say it but I agree with Jerry, I would call the AHJ and meet. As far as Lucy and Reeecky...well that's another story.

The buyer has kept me in the loop regarding her communications with the builder on this issue. She has relayed all my opinions on the repair to the builder and this is the response she got back from them:

"As shown in Nick's pictures the repair has been installed and has been inspected by the township codes enforcement official, who requires engineering on an issue regarding an I-Joist. A repair like this is not uncommon with I-Joists; where the webbing of the I joist is filled with plywood blocking to support the I-Joist on both sides. This is what re-gains the structural ability of the I joist and then a 2x4 on both sides of the top chord of the I-joist as additional bearing and support for the sub- floor.

I hope this is not too far over your head, I am just trying to help you understand the repair. We can discuss more tomorrow if you would like."

The repair design from the engineer was clearly not followed but they are insisting it was repaired. I feel bad for the buyer at this point.

Step #1:

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

I forwarded my report to the buyer along with a suggestion that they request the builder to have a field rep for the truss manufacturer come to the site and render an opinion on those joists.

Misstep #whatever:

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

The buyer has kept me in the loop regarding her communications with the builder on this issue. She has relayed all my opinions on the repair to the builder and this is the response she got back from them:

"As shown in Nick's pictures the repair has been installed and has been inspected by the township codes enforcement official, who requires engineering on an issue regarding an I-Joist. A repair like this is not uncommon with I-Joists; where the webbing of the I joist is filled with plywood blocking to support the I-Joist on both sides. This is what re-gains the structural ability of the I joist and then a 2x4 on both sides of the top chord of the I-joist as additional bearing and support for the sub- floor.

I hope this is not too far over your head, I am just trying to help you understand the repair. We can discuss more tomorrow if you would like."

The repair design from the engineer was clearly not followed but they are insisting it was repaired. I feel bad for the buyer at this point.

Go back to Step #1 and tell your client that her only hope at this times may be to have the manufacturer's representative visit the site, review the photos and the information the contractor provided (which does not say that the photos do not show what he did, only that what he did ... he has done many other times before) and let the manufacturer's representative either sign off on the I-joists if the repairs are acceptable to them, or provide a review document which states what is needed, and have the manufacturer's representative deliver a copy of the review documentation to the AHJ ... that takes the contractor (who is trying to not have to spend the money needed to make a proper repair) out of the loop between the manufacturer and the AHJ.

The AHJ will likely require the contractor to make whatever corrections are necessary to have the manufacturer's representative accept and approve the repair (that way the AHJ is out of the picture - the manufacturer is now the party holding the contractor's feet to the fire as the AHJ will only 'approve based on the manufacturer's acceptance and approval' ... and the manufacturer is the one who's engineering is on the line. I suspect that the contractor will begin to see the light of the fire as their feet get closer and closer to the flames and they feel the heat.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

....


Go back to Step #1 and tell your client that her only hope at this times may be to have the manufacturer's representative visit the site, review the photos and the information the contractor provided ........

I did advise the buyer of this. Not sure if she'll get anywhere or the builder will follow through with the request.