Citizens re-inspect

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by aalm

What do I tell my client? It will cost him $440 a year. Permit complete in the city of Delray Beach.


Cedar Shake roof installed in 2007...I found plenty of shiners at least 2in of nail measured and 5/8 sheathing....The citizens inspector says its a 6d nail?? WTF????

Is there plywood here with battens on top?

[Preston L. Halstead]

Typically in a re roof of the kind the batten boards would be new- and only have 1 nail per board. also I know someone in delray beach that had to fight to have ther wood shake roof installed this way as it did not meet current codes. According to the building department.

Regardless the form specifically states which box to check in this situation. You can spin it however you like unfortunately the wording is already there

[Jay C. Murray]

Reinspection just screwed a client.

We all know, that marking UNKNOWN equates to a serious loss of credits. However, reinspection firms love this selection. They use it to point out a descreptancy between the original inspection and the reinspection as validation for their business scheme.

Here's the client's situation: -Batten deck was sheeted over with plywood and nailed 6 x 6 with 8d or greater nails, (Ashpalt Shingles with permit in 2006 re roof).

Reinspector marked UNKNOWN.

Their reasoning is:

'since the reinspector is not a professional engineer, that don't know what the psf rating would be.'

Jusitfying their conduct with an insinuation that the psf rating could actually be higher than the 182psf.

Either way, the client loses credits for a permited feature that was performed to current Florida Building Code and passed inspection. That is criminal.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by phalstead

Typically in a re roof of the kind the batten boards would be new- and only have 1 nail per board. also I know someone in delray beach that had to fight to have ther wood shake roof installed this way as it did not meet current codes. According to the building department.

Regardless the form specifically states which box to check in this situation. You can spin it however you like unfortunately the wording is already there

Weren't we talking about "intent of the form" at the meeting?

It is quite apparent to me, the "intent" and that is what I would go by.

As an aside, I notice there is no check-box for a shake roof. An oversight or on purpose?


What band of monkeys uses one nail for anything? Way way back, we used two nails minimum for this decking.

Now, I do have a question which may be the cause of the confusion.

In all of the ceder shake roofs I have seen down here and the ones I have installed, where battens were used, the battens were 1 x 4 x 8 wood. The felt was woven in between the battens and then, the shakes were installed on top of the battens. The battens were 4 inches apart.

I know of some installations that have decking and then 1 x 1 battens on top of the decking and then the shakes are attached to that. There are also some types of cement tile roofs that are done that way.

What are we talking about in this case.

[Carl Pennick]

Originally Posted by jmurray4

Reinspection just screwed a client.

We all know, that marking UNKNOWN equates to a serious loss of credits. However, reinspection firms love this selection. They use it to point out a descreptancy between the original inspection and the reinspection as validation for their business scheme.

Here's the client's situation: -Batten deck was sheeted over with plywood and nailed 6 x 6 with 8d or greater nails, (Ashpalt Shingles with permit in 2006 re roof).

Reinspector marked UNKNOWN.

Their reasoning is:

'since the reinspector is not a professional engineer, that don't know what the psf rating would be.'

Jusitfying their conduct with an insinuation that the psf rating could actually be higher than the 182psf.

Either way, the client loses credits for a permited feature that was performed to current Florida Building Code and passed inspection. That is criminal.

The home owner should dispute this

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by jmurray4

Reinspection just screwed a client.

We all know, that marking UNKNOWN equates to a serious loss of credits. However, reinspection firms love this selection. They use it to point out a descreptancy between the original inspection and the reinspection as validation for their business scheme.

Here's the client's situation: -Batten deck was sheeted over with plywood and nailed 6 x 6 with 8d or greater nails, (Ashpalt Shingles with permit in 2006 re roof).

Reinspector marked UNKNOWN.

Their reasoning is:

'since the reinspector is not a professional engineer, that don't know what the psf rating would be.'

Jusitfying their conduct with an insinuation that the psf rating could actually be higher than the 182psf.

Either way, the client loses credits for a permited feature that was performed to current Florida Building Code and passed inspection. That is criminal.

I would contact the roofer and see what he used.
As there is roof decking:

C. Plywood/OSB roof sheathing with a minimum thickness of 7/16”inch attached to the roof truss/rafter (spaced a maximum of
24”inches o.c.) by 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6” inches in the field. -OR- Dimensional lumber/Tongue & Groove
decking with a minimum of 2 nails per board (or 1 nail per board if each board is equal to or less than 6 inches in width). -OR- Any
system of screws, nails, adhesives, other deck fastening system or truss/rafter spacing that is shown to have an equivalent or greater
resistance than 8d common nails spaced a maximum of 6 inches in the field or has a mean uplift resistance of at least 182 psf.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by aalm

What do I tell my client? It will cost him $440 a year. Permit complete in the city of Delray Beach.


Cedar Shake roof installed in 2007...I found plenty of shiners at least 2in of nail measured and 5/8 sheathing....The citizens inspector says its a 6d nail?? WTF????

If battens only roof 1
If decking, roof 2.

I suspect at some point, there will have to be a letter like the one we had to use for tile roofs.

To whom it may concern,
In order to shaft those with wood shake roofs, the OIR has conveniently left a selection for them off of the "type of roof covering" section. Instead, they have co-mingled roof types with roof decking attachment, which have nothing to do with each other.

The inspector is forced to check box A no matter what type of underlying decking is present.

The roof in question conforms to the building code at the time of construction.