Count or Not Count towards Wind Mit. Report

[Michael J. Meeker]

Originally Posted by mcramer1

This is really not that complicated.

You measure the total permiter.

You use the portion of the perimiter that's flat or gable to perform the calculation.

If you have a total of 200' of mostly hip and a flat roof that has 2 sides that are part of the TOTAL permiter that measure 18', it's a hip roof.

If the 2 sides of the flat roof that are part of the total perimiter measure 20' or more, it's "other."

As John said, there is only one perimiter.

So according to you train of thought nothing Inside "not part of the perimeter"

Regardless or shape matters?


Good for homeowners

What say the rest of you?

[Michael J. Meeker]

So is this a hip roof or other?

Speak up fellas

According to the forms description only please?

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

So is this a hip roof or other?

Speak up fellas

According to the forms description only please?

Marshall is asleep but, I'll have him get on this first thing.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

So according to you train of thought nothing Inside "not part of the perimeter"

Regardless or shape matters?


Good for homeowners

What say the rest of you?

Mike,
The new course is being tweaked and when it is done, all will be clear...

[Jay C. Murray]

Originally Posted by dsemmel

Had an Agent tell me that this should not count as part of the roof.

Was I wrong for a Wind Mit. I counted this as an attached flat roof. Which put the percentage above 10%.

Any opinions..


Attachment 52141

Attachment 52142

The agent is correct.

There are many reasons you would not calculate that 'structure' in your wind mitigation.

1. It's not part of the Host structure, eventhough it's attached to it. Screen enclosures are secondary structures.
2. It is not structurally attached. It is attached only to the wall/facia.
3. It is not enclosed space.

You would not count the roof as part of your roof coverings for many of the same reasons.

[Michael J. Meeker]

Originally Posted by evandeven

Mike,
The new course is being tweaked and when it is done, all will be clear...

I am not concerned with what the course says.

I would like your and everyone else interpretation of what the form says.

I will be filling out the form based on what it says.

Only a few of the folks that will be doing these inspections are required to take any course at all.

I would love Joseph Ferry's opinion on this or any other lawyer.

Please see attached image above and tell me what this structure is call based ONLY on the wording of the form Please.

[wsiegel]

Mike,

There is an amendment on the Senate floor that would require any windstorm inspector to take a three hour course and pass a test. The vote is coming up soon

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

I am not concerned with what the course says.

I would like your and everyone else interpretation of what the form says.

I will be filling out the form based on what it says.

Only a few of the folks that will be doing these inspections are required to take any course at all.

I would love Joseph Ferry's opinion on this or any other lawyer.

Please see attached image above and tell me what this structure is call based ONLY on the wording of the form Please.

Mike,
I spoke with John S. at length last night.

The NACHI course and all of the others are going to be virtually the same. They are approved by the construction board.
If you follow what is in the course, you will not have to worry about any legal repercussions.

If you go to the OiR site and read all the discussions,comments and studies, which is what I did yesterday, you will understand why things are done on the form the way they are.

The methods used for the questions although not exactly what some of us believe to be correct, are the best that could be done. It is what it is.

The whole purpose of measuring the non-hip feature on a hip roof really has nothing to do with a flat roof. Very few homes with flat roofs are going to be classified as a hip roof.

The measurement requirement is so that those that have the decorative features, dormers, dutch hip roofs, etc. wouldn't be penalized for what in some instances, is a decorative item.

Basically, the OiR has limited down the ability to classify a home as a hip roof to the bare minimum. Since hip roofs are supposedly better according to the studies, I can understand their reasoning.

The rest of the stuff on the form is pretty cut and dried.
You have plenty of options to prove something as for roof coverings.
You have at least two methods, permit verification, model number verification, for hurricane shutters.
Same goes for garage doors, exterior doors, and windows.

The only other issue is roof to wall attachment. That too is very cut and dried.
The definitions are on the form.

I would suggest that everyone obtain as much information as possible before you even go to the inspections. It will make your life a lot easier and also make you look like more of a professional.

There is always going to be the special case where the strap isn't close enough the to truss, the wrap being backwards, or something odd, but I am sure that those instances will be the exception, not the norm.

For everyone else, the new course is not finished as of yet. There are a few corrections that need to be made especially, the roof geometry section.
In speaking with John, all of the concerns I had about the course were addressed.
I sent him some suggestions, that mostly pertain to verbiage, which I think will clear up any confusion on this area.

As soon as the course is complete, I am sure John or Ben will post and let everyone know.

[Michael J. Meeker]

Nice letter and advice but what is the image I posted above based on the form?

Hip or Other?

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

Nice letter and advice but what is the image I posted above based on the form?

Hip or Other?

First, try to upload a picture that I don't need the Mount Palomar telescope to view!

Marshall says other...but it will need to be measured to be sure. It is close.

Speaking of my young son, the wife informs me that on the way to school today, the chatter from the back seat was....hip roof Mommy/no other shapes...non-hip Mommy/flat................etc. ad nauseum....

I suspect I'll have to teach him something else as the half hour ride each way to and from school, may cause the wife to go insane!

[Michael J. Meeker]

Poor wife

Mine knows no hugs when Daddy gets home if he has been in attics.

First question usually is did you go in attics today?

I am sure we can agree on one thing. They are the reason we do what we do

[Christopher B. Thomas]

Wait a minute. The metal roof over the screen porch is not tied in to the roof over the dwelling. The roof perimeter would not include the flat metal roof shown at the start of this post.

Attached or detached, the screen porch and its roof would not affect the envelope of the dwelling, therefore we do not count it and neither should you.

Now if the flat roof over the porch was connected to the roof of the dwelling in a manner where if it were to fail it would cause a failure of the dwelling roof it should be counted. Also if the roof covers a portion of the building envelope it should be counted. If we are going to count this roof we should also count the roof of connected buildings, detached garages connected by fences, dog houses connected by sidewalks etc.

[Bob Wisnewski]

Under Nachi's revised online Wind Mit course, Section 5 Roof Geometry, pages 3 and 4 shows 3 pics. The captions read as follows:

Pic 1: This picture shows a structure that is not structurally attached [/B][/to the house, but it is a living space. It should be considered in the total roof geometry.

Pic 2: This picture is of a flat roof over an unenclosed space. It is not counted in the roof shape calculations, but should be reported with the roof covering. It is connected to the wall of the structure.

Pic 3: Tis is a picture of a porch that is not structurally attached. It should be considered when reporting roof coverings.

Based on the above, it appears Ben is saying the key to making the determination is not based on structural attachment but on whether the covered area is considered living space or not.

[Preston L. Halstead]

That would be correct, I think Ben got a lot of the information from John S. And other industry leaders

[Michael J. Meeker]

I think the answers should come from only the OIR.

Industry leaders...Ha you must be joking.

I do feel John knows a ton "because he has actually performed a bunch" but that does not make him in charge or the final say so on anything.

What makes one a industry leader. Agreeing with a bunch of others who share your opinions.

I am sure Don Meyler is considered an industry leader as well.

The real industry leaders are the problem. Caving to whatever the insurance companies request.

Maybe the OIR should be the industry leader?