wind mit overhang

This overhang is attached to the fascia…As I understand it, if this was an enclosed porch, the predominant roof would be downgraded to flat, but since it’s not enclosed it keeps it’s hip rating…This PORCH roof doesn’t count. Correct…

thanx
Tom

Well, doesn’t count against the hip rating but needs to be reported as one of the types of roof coverings on the form in section #2. And remember there isn’t a “flat” roof designation for single family on the 1802 form. It would be other. But, you are correct in your reasoning though.

Bert

Homes are never ever ever downgraded to flat any more. it could only be other. Flat only pertains to multiple units.

I disagree. If you have a true fascia or wall-mounted flat roof, separated from the main roof, you can treat it like it doesn’t exist on all areas of the form including roof covering.

I would not downgrade that. You are correct Tom. And I don’t report it on the roof matrix. If it is non enclosed space and not attached to the main roofline.

Are you sure it is only attached to the fascia? I suspect it is actually attached to the truss ends.

And I have to disagree with your interpretation. That’s not what te form asks. Just because it’s not counted in the roof geometry calculations doesn’t mean it isn’t a roof covering “in use”. And that’s what that particular section asks.

Bert

Do what you feel is right, but you should also then count the roof covering on their shed, too. With true fascia-mounted roofs (usually metal or membrane, clearly separated from the main roof at the drip edge), these are not insured, will have no effect on the main structure if they are ripped off, and should not be counted. If, however, that flat roof has any material from the main roof covering that division (the drip edge) and/or tied into the main structure in any way (trusses, etc), then it is now considered structural and should be included in both areas of the OIR.

I agree and here is what the form says:

Nowhere does it say “except xxx type of roof” in that section.

I do want to first say, this is a healthy and I feel much needed debate. There are many ambiguities associated with this form. This I believe is just one of them. Trish, what I cannot do as an inspector is try and second guess what an insurance company covers or doesn’t cover. Citizens isn’t the only one requiring this form. Some companies may choose to offer coverage for this same roof we’re discussing on this thread. I can only report what I observe. Obviously I am not going to count a detached tool shed as a “covered roof”. But, in this case where it’s up against the home, I’m counting it as a “roof covering in use”. This is just me. Anyone is welcome and encouraged to do as they see fit. Again thanks for a healthy debate.

Regards,
Bert

Really???

When you use this new and altogether WRONG methodology, on a re-inspection. Do we then have another discreptancy between a poorly performed re-inspection and the correctly performed prior inspection?

You have just summed up the problem with the reinspection programs…Thank you Trisha.

A “covered enclosure” is not even permitted like a roof, they’re permitted and installed by aluminum contractors. if you count this as a “roof”, and the county building department doesn’t, how would you prove compliance? keep in mind, local codes here are different from s Florida, but I am very curious about this.

Jay, give it a rest. I’m beginning to think you’re the one who is obsessed with the reinspection program.

Here’s an example. Let’s say I have a wood arbor, 12x12, attached to my fascia with brick pavers and a seating area underneath. On top of the arbor, I have corrugated metal shed roofing attached for shade.

The rest of my home has a new roof.

You would not give me FBC credit because I have a roof covering over my “patio” that isn’t compliant?

There is absolutely no difference between this example and a “covered enclosure” installed by an aluminum contractor.

Again, we’re not talking about a structural flat roof here. This is considered a purely fascia or wall mounted roof area. Just think about it…

I’ll post this again:

A metal roof attached to the structure is still a roof.

This is another example of the form going awry. It used to say “predominate roof covering” but now has been changed to all. Personally, I believe this was a calculated move in order to remove discounts for a roof like you describe.
Which, in a majority of instances was never permitted.

As for this statement:

The bolded part is completely false. After Wilma, there were several homes that had these roofs as well a screen enclosures that were damaged, ripping the fascia boards off the roof and then, portions of the roof. And that was only a category 1 storm, or so they say.

Back to the original roof in the first post. If it is attached strictly to the fascia, I would guess that the homeowner did it and it wasn’t permitted, mainly be the type of construction I see.

It would be included in question 2 and marked C but would be excluded for the roof calculation and the roof would be a hip roof.

And I’ll have to repeat this once more…

‘There are many ambiguities associated with this form. This I believe is just one of them. Trish, what I cannot do as an inspector is try and second guess what an insurance company covers or doesn’t cover. Citizens isn’t the only one requiring this form. Some companies may choose to offer coverage for this same roof we’re discussing on this thread. I can only report what I observe. Obviously I am not going to count a detached tool shed as a “covered roof”. But, in this case where it’s up against the home, I’m counting it as a “roof covering in use”. This is just me. Anyone is welcome and encouraged to do as they see fit.’

Stop playing the role of the underwriter and just report on what you observe. As Eric has stated on his post above, include it in section #2 and mark it as “C”. Let the insurance company decide what to make of it. That seems easy enough to me.

Bert

Trisha, Are you even reading what your writing?

We have millions of these all across the state, many of which are enclosed living space and additions. You wouldn’t count them???

What if it is enclosed living space and greater than 10% of the roof perimeter???

So, only if we have shingles and tile on the Flat roof??? What if the whole roof is rolled roofing??? What if it is all metal???

Only, if it is structurall attached, we consider it for both sections???

Trisha, If your going to write nonesense. Someone will call you on it.

This message board is read by many inspectors looking for no nonesense assistance to issues they discover daily. Try to keep your facts straight.

Trisha, you are correct about "your" wood arbor with brick pavers, or a screen enclosure.
But, here’s where I believe you go off course.

The picture above is not of a screen enclosure or wood arbor with brick pavers. Yes, the roof of the pictured property in question is not structurally attached. However, the whole porch is part of the inspected structure for a variety of reasons. Chiefly, It is the method of egress from that French door.

I myself, would not be willing to decide on the roof covering as, ‘temporary shade’ or ‘permanent roofing’ over the porch without more information.

Your understanding of screen enclosures as additional structures is accurate. But your earlier statements about the 1802 where incorrect and misleading.

As to your question:

Yes, I would not. If if it is permanent roofing over any portion of the inspected structure and ****not part of a ‘secondary structure’. However, your wood arbor example is not permanent roofing over a portion of the inspected property, but over a secondary structure. As such, “your” wood arbor would not effect your wind mitigation.

I might have to agree with the reinspectors here. If it’s not counted in geometry or attachment it doesn’t exist… Invisible

  1. If the space is enclosed by walls and is living space, then the roof is counted on the OIR whether it is fascia mounted or not.

  2. If the covering on the flat roof ( whatever the material may be) ties into the main roof (whatever the covering is…metal, rolled asphalt, tile, shingle, etc etc), it is counted and now considered structural.

  3. When I say “covered enclosure” that is the term for the type of aluminum roof I’m talking about: a covered screen enclosure. It is called a “covered enclosure” and not an addition or roof because it is not permitted as a roof: it is permitted as a screen enclosure, covered.

  4. If the whole roof is rolled asphalt or membrane, that has nothing to do whatsoever with the discussion at hand. If that’s the case you call it out as such on the roof covering section and indicate if in compliance.

  5. The point was, there is no difference between this arbor and an aluminum screen enclosure installed by permit as a screen enclosure, not a roof.

You guys cry about the form being designed to take credits away from homeowners, yet you are doing a huge disservice to your customers if you are taking away their roof covering discount because of an arbor with a covering or a screen enclosure with a covering that was permitted as a covered screen enclosure and not a roof.

Let me reword my original quote in a general way, so there can be no interpretations…

If you have a flat roof, get on your ladder and look at where it meets the main roof ( regardless of the main roof material, or the material on the flat roof). Can you see a clear division of the two? There should be a drip edge visible between them.

  1. Yes, there is a clear division and the flat roof is over a screened or open porch or a carport = true fascia mount = does not count on the OIR.

  2. No, there is no division and the main roof material ( doesn’t matter what that material is) overlaps the flat roof material ( doesn’t matter what the material is) = structural flat roof = counts as roof covering and roof shape on the OIR.

  3. There is a clear division between the flat area and the main roof, but the flat roof is over enclosed living space = structural flat roof = counts as roof covering and shape on the OIR.

I hope I cleared that up for you.