Board of Code Appeals

BOARD OF CODE APPEALS REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2015 SUBJECT: The minutes of the Board of Code Appeals meeting of April 9, 2015. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stanek at 6:01 pm MEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Harvey, Terry Measel, Thaddeus Stanek Frank Bayer, Commercial Plan Reviewer ABSENT: Fred Berg, Laurel Johnson RECORDING SECRETARY: Rene Rosni APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Harvey, supported by Measel, to approve the agenda as presented. Yes: All Absent: Berg, Johnson Motion carried. CONSIDERATIONS PG15-0025 – FunSpace Direct, Jim Hall Requesting Board Approval for a variance to Michigan Residential Code 2009, Section R905.2.2, which does not allow asphalt shingles to be used on roof slopes less than 2/12. Property address: 3324 Bates Representing the petitioner, James Hall, FunSpace Direct, 20400 Hall Road, Clinton Township, MI 48038. Terry Barash, homeowner, 3324 Bates, was also present. Mr. Hall stated that the issue is with the existing sunroom, which the homeowner wished to have torn down and replaced with a structure consisting of SIPS (structurally insulated panel) based on the same criteria as the sunroom. We were going to take it up an additional 10” or so. Though we presented plans to the city showing 8’ to 10’, the roof thickness on our set panel to get to the energy code issues increased it to a 6” panel, which skewed his back dimension, though he brought it up to this back area shown on the plans. Based on typical wall dimensions being 8’, it brought it back to about a 9’ wall. Unfortunately things were altered from a 2/12 down to a 1/12. Mr. Hall indicated the original sunroom was completely taken down so basically this is new construction, other than he was trying to get it fitted onto the back wall. Mr. Harvey asked if he was using the old attachments to the building? Mr. Hall stated he removed the attachment but did actually bring it up to the top of the bump out at that point. Now, the only mitigating circumstance is that every time he puts a roof on, he has a water and ice shield with the membrane on top and shingles on top of that. In addition, he reflashed underneath the shingles on that small little 24” bump out area. He indicated that when he talked to the City, they said he could put a rubber membrane roof. Mr. Hall did not think the homeowner would like a rubber roof, although he did put water and ice shield all the way from the edge all the way to the back. He applied the shingles after that so there is a membrane under that and it’s not just felt. Mr. Harvey asked if there were nail holes. Mr. Hall stated there are nail holes on almost everything. He stated he has put up a couple of rubber roofs and has had problems with leaking but has never had an issue with this kind of roof. Mr. Hall requested that Mr. Barash be asked if he’s had any issues with the roof this winter. Board of Code Appeals Page 2 April 9, 2015 Regular Meeting Mr. Barash stated not as of yet, however, that being said, he was never consulted about this variance. The first he heard about it was when the city sent him notice of this hearing. He did not realize how much it was actually off and was surprised because he thought it was being built according to the diagram. Mr. Barash stated he believes the code is there for a reason and he would like to have his house built to code. He also feels there is a reason the asphalt shingles are not good enough unless it’s 2/12. His reason for attending tonight’s meeting is to make sure the roof is being done the right way. Mr. Harvey stated that if you can visualize a shingle with the water running over it, you could see that a single drop of water would go right down. However, if you get a torrential rain, the level of water on the roof may go up high enough so the water can go back under the shingles. There is nothing to prevent the water from going back under. Mr. Measel stated this is true, especially if there’s a wind. Mr. Barash stated he did have a bit of a leak early on and they caulked the problem area, so obviously, this is one of his concerns. Mr. Stanek stated that another concern for the code may be for the first year or two after construction. There may not be a problem but with the proper pitch, that run-off will more easily run off rather than being held in by the wind. Mr. Barash also has a concern that if he tries to sell the home someday, the next homeowner may not be in agreement with the variance. Mr. Harvey stated that you have to realize that in construction, water is the enemy and one of the worst things is a leaky roof. Mr. Hall stated that he has done a lot of work within the City of Sterling Heights and has maintained a good reputation with the city. Mr. Harvey asked Mr. Hall if he’s done many roofs with a 1/12. Mr. Hall stated that most of his rooms have a 1/12, although they are mainly metal standing seam roofs. He also added that he’s gone above and beyond what the code calls for with a snow and ice shield opposed to felt. He also stated he has no issue giving Mr. Barash an extended warranty which states if there are any issues, it will be taken care of. Mr. Harvey stated that he believes the shield is supposed to be 24” out from the edge. Mr. Bayer confirmed that the shield should be 24” from the inside edge of the wall but that’s in a heated room. Mr. Hall indicated this is a heated room. He also added he went back underneath this to reinforce the flashing. Mr. Measel asked how high is the flashing on the house wall? Mr. Hall stated it’s as far back as he could go on this, which is 24”. Mr. Measel inquired as to how high the vertical leg of the flashing is on the new roof? Mr. Hall responded that it’s 6”. Mr. Measel indicated he had a concern with 1/12 roof with snow piled on it. Mr. Hall stated that it what they had up before. He did not change that part of the existing roof. Board of Code Appeals Page 3 April 9, 2015 Regular Meeting Mr. Barash stated the original roof was a lot steeper. Mr. Hall indicated a metal roof cannot be used on this. This a SIPS (structurally insulated panel) room. It requires OSB on the bottom and OSB on the top, and to get the energy rating that’s required by the city, he would have to have a certain density and does not believe he can mix those two products. If he put a metal roof on top of that, he's going to have a metal roof inside the room and he does not believe Mr. Barash would want that. Mr. Hall explained SIPS must always have OSB on the top and UPS foam on the bottom. Mr. Measel stated you put your SIPS panel on, put tar paper over that and then nail a metal roof to it. You could add a metal roof on top of the SIPS panel. Other options would be a rubber roof or one of the pre-manufactured roofs. Mr. Bayer explained that he could use a modified bitumen, torch down, or self-adhesive torch down. These are some options that are allowed. Mr. Barash stated the old roof was a white aluminum roof. Mr. Hall stated there is a galvanized steel standard seam like you see on a bank. My metal roofs are panel roofs. I was looking at not having to tear apart the roof. Mr. Measel stated all he would have to do is take off the asphalt shingles and put the metal roof on, or single-ply rubber roof or fiberglass roof. Mr. Harvey indicated that legally they can only give a variance when they believe it to be equal to or better than what the code states and they do not feel what he’s proposing is better or equal, even with the extended warranty. Motion by Measel, supported by Harvey, to deny G15-1125 – FunSpace Direct, James Hall, and the request for a variance to Michigan Residential Code 2009, Section R905.2.2, which does not allow asphalt shingles to be used on roof slopes less than 2/12. Yes: All Absent: Berg, Johnson Motion: Carried OLD BUSINESS PG15-0020 – Raad Cora Requesting Board Approval for a variance to Sections 903.2.1.2. and 1004.1.2. Code requires fire sprinklers in an A-2 use group with occupants over 100. Applicant indicates he will not have over 100 occupants but the code indicates that it will exceed it. Property address: 4075 Fourteen Mile Road Mr. Bayer recommended that this item be tabled for six months. The petitioner has run into issues with the Planning Department because they have insufficient parking. At this time, it is not known if they have applied for Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion by Harvey, supported by Measel, to table this item for six months. Yes: All Absent: Berg, Johnson Motion: Carried NEW BUSINESS – None PARTICIPATION – None Board of Code Appeals Page 4 April 9, 2015 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Stanek, supported by Johnson, to approve the minutes of March 12, 2015 with one adjustment - Mr. Measel was chairman of that night’s meeting. Yes: All Absent: Berg, Johnson Motion carried ADJOURNMENT Motion by Harvey, supported by Measel, to adjourn. Yes: All Absent: Berg, Johnson Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Thaddeus Stanek Chairman