Commentary for Texas and Practices now available

[Aaron D. Miller]

Again, a Commentary won't be complete, accurate or absolute but it will help explain the SoP.

Sorry Jim, I disagree. You can not explain the inexplicable simply by writing and attaching yet another layer of nonsense to it.

I hope it will raise the bar

It cannot possibly raise anything except doubt regarding the intellect of the authors.

[Jim Hime]

Originally Posted by jcahill

In reply to www.soprfi.com, the TREC inspector committee stated a missing weep hole is not a defect if there is no evidence of damage.

If one doesn't know the purpose of a inner wall cavity and weep hole then one may appear to have such an opinion. The statewide building code says different. A weep hole is not just for drainage of a inner wall cavity. It also serves as ventilation and pressure-balancing of the inner wall cavity. High moisture (inner wall after a rain) migrates to low moisture (interior of home). Higher air pressure flows to lower air pressure. (Ventilating the air space in a masonry wall cavity is just as important as ventilating an attic cavity)

I would agree a non-functional weep hole and inner wall cavity may not be a deficiency if we were in...... the desert. Alas, I'm in a area of 40-60 inches of rainfall a year. Builders scramble down here after a saturating rain or storm yanking brick out along a foundation to clean out the mortar slop as the water infiltrates to the interior. The baseboards swell off the wall, the carpet gets wet, one or two mold spots show up and the drama starts. Luckily the builder is around to fix it and not me.

No weep hole, no deficiency? You certainly won't get that opinion from me.

The Commentary is in conflict with itself on the weep hole opinion as on page 5 it says (correctly) - <quote> Commentary -- To prevent this section from being misunderstood, materials on a dwelling must be inspected for the function they perform. For example, a single wythe brick veneer wall is not a structural component of a dwelling unit. However, the failure to properly install, flash and drain a single wythe brick veneer wall can allow water penetration into the wall system. The presence of water in the wall system can cause the brick to effloresce, crack, craze, spall and disintegrate. It can cause metal components such as lintels and brick ties to corrode and fail. Water penetration may also cause insulating materials to lose their effectiveness, can allow interior wall coverings and wall framing materials to deteriorate and can provide the moisture necessary to allow the growth of microbial organisms. While the brick veneer may not be a structural component, defects in the brick and in its installation can have great and grave repercussions on the performance and longevity of the dwelling.<quote>

Wow, no weep hole, no deficiency? Now, the person that wrote that obviously has more construction knowledge and correctness than "the other guy". The Commentary note is the intent of why weep holes are required under the minimum building code and Brick Manufacturers Association (www.bia.org).

Originally Posted by jcahill

TREC form OP1 accepts grandfathering . . . officially.

OPI warns consumers about the lack of current (gfci, afci, safety glass, etc.) installations. TREC OP1 is not grandfathering anything. It's clearly in the SoP to write missing (gfci, afci, safety glass, etc.) as a deficiency.

Originally Posted by jcahill

Inspect foundation, roof electrical, plumbing roof etc works for me.

Inspect to what standard though. That's why we have a SoP and soon to be Commentary.

Does anyone have a Commentary that is better than the existing Draft that was just released? It's a start. Not a complete document. The Draft is asking for comments, updates, corrections, additions, etc. Some of it appears embarrassing but that should work itself out as it is being revised.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by jhime

If one doesn't know the purpose of a inner wall cavity and weep hole then one may appear to have such an opinion.

Wow, no weep hole, no deficiency? Now, the person that wrote that obviously has more construction knowledge and correctness than "the other guy".

The person who reviewed the SoP question for TREC staff and wrote the Commentary is the same person. You are correct . . . the Commentary is in conflict with itself. Please send your educational comments to the Chairman of the Inspector Committee.

Originally Posted by jhime

Builders scramble down here after a saturating rain or storm yanking brick out along a foundation to clean out the mortar slop as the water infiltrates to the interior.

Actually, leaks caused by mortar build up are not resolved with weep holes.

Originally Posted by jhime

OPI warns consumers about the lack of current (gfci, afci, safety glass, etc.) installations. TREC OP1 is not grandfathering anything. It's clearly in the SoP to write missing (gfci, afci, safety glass, etc.) as a deficiency.

OP1 states: "These conditions may not have violated building codes or common practices at the time of the construction of the home, or they may have been “grandfathered” because they were present prior to the adoption of codes prohibiting such conditions."

Grandfathering is a legal process granted to the authority having jurisdiction. People with common sense realize the country cannot make pre-existing housing meet every code cycle.

OP1 gives the real estate agent just enough leash to say "Oh that is grandfathered". As much as I hate to hear that, they are often much more accurate in their representations than the TREC Standards.

Originally Posted by jhime

The Commentary is in conflict with itself

As are the Standards. You are correct.

Originally Posted by jhime

The Commentary note is the intent

A wall with weep holes holds water better than that argument. The TREC General Counsel has stated since 2006 that any intent or clearly specified requirement MUST be in the Standards. The Commentary is a waste of time; including the comments on this forum.

Originally Posted by jhime

Inspect to what standard though. That's why we have a SoP and soon to be Commentary.

Glad you have them to rely on.

Originally Posted by jhime

Does anyone have a Commentary that is better than the existing Draft that was just released?

Yes, a blank sheet of paper and invisible ink.

Originally Posted by jhime

That's why we have a SoP and soon to be Commentary.

I hear you loud and clear. You need rules to tell you and others what to do. Join the army.

Nothing that happens will affect my business or improve bad inspectors. You want a 200 page Commentary . . . go for it.

[Jim Hime]

Originally Posted by jcahill

[FONT=Arial]
Actually, leaks caused by mortar build up are not resolved with weep holes.

Actually leaks caused by mortar build up in the inner wall are fixed by cleaning out the mortar so the weep holes are functional in every single case I have seen. (Yes, maybe one skipped past me).

Originally Posted by jcahill

[FONT=Arial]OP1 states: "These conditions may not have violated building codes or common practices at the time of the construction of the home, or they may have been “grandfathered” because they were present prior to the adoption of codes prohibiting such conditions."

Grandfathering is a legal process granted to the authority having jurisdiction. People with common sense realize the country cannot make pre-existing housing meet every code cycle.

The OP1 still isn't grandfathered anything. The example items used in the OP1 are required to be reported as deficient if they are not present. I'm not sure what the spin is here. Don't worry about a sales agent. I'd worry about complying with the requirements of the SoP as non-compliance does not appear to have a happy ending. Agents can read the OP1 just like the public can. There's some bad apples in sales as there are in inspectors. If a agent talks down a deficiency that deficiency becomes their liability IMO.

Originally Posted by jcahill

[FONT=Arial]
A wall with weep holes holds water better than that argument. The TREC General Counsel has stated since 2006 that any intent or clearly specified requirement MUST be in the Standards. The Commentary is a waste of time; including the comments on this forum.

Well, that's one opinion but I would have no idea of what the current GC or Commission opinion is as I don't have the connections all you other guys have to information. I can probably guess 1 or 2 others don't see a Commentary a waste of time but I don't think that's what started this thread. Maybe there could be a survey asking if a Commentary is a waste of time? I don't think a Commentary could effectively become part of the standards based on the previous comment/opinions but more apt better to educate and offer a guideline on what the intent of the standards are for how detailed a Commentary is anticipated. Certainly a Commentary on each line item may certainly be ridiculous to one but helpful to another. I will remain open to a Commentary because even after 20 + years I still review the SoP indepth 2x a year and correct or make some revision periodically. I certainly don't want to add to the SoP. I almost need a nap 1/2 way through report writing already.

As of yet I haven't been convinced to not support a Commentary and at the end of the day it doesn't matter anyway. I don't get to vote. I don't even know who came up with the idea of a Commentary or the reason but as of yet I don't see the down side.

If the standards are so bad then what has any previous or current inspector committee contributed to make it better? I certainly won't cast any stones as I haven't contributed.

[John Cahill]

James, "at the end of the day it doesn't matter anyway" is correct. Take care. Hope summer is busy for all.

[Aaron D. Miller]

Does anyone have a Commentary that is better than the existing Draft that was just released?

Yes, the commentary which accompanies each model code.

It's a start.

Yes, it is a start down yet another slippery slope where the uneducated are penning more specious regulations.

Some of it appears embarrassing

On this point we are in agreement. Well, except for the "some" . . .