Construction Board of Adjustment Minutes - 05/21/1996 Building Code Board of Adjustments & Appeals
Tuesday, May 21, 1996
Board Members Present: Visitors & City Personnel:
Donal Holey Earl Potts
James Foster Bobby Teague
Michael Koen Michael Lam
Rebecca Lanmon Bill Rowland
John Morrison Charles Barr
George Ross Jr. Nick Merriman
Randy Wachsman Ralph Perkins
Lindsey Walker Larry Scott
Board Members Absent:
Ted Litteken
Bill Daniel, Council Liaison
The Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals was called to order
at 1: 30 P.M. on May 21, 1996 by Board Member Randy Wachsman. Mr.
Wachsman noted that the meeting had been called in order to hear
an appeal of the Building Code from Chuck Dennis of Dennis
Company.
Mr. Dennis was called upon to state the particulars of his
appeal. Mr. Dennis responded by telling the Board that his
appeal involved roof re-decking and recovering work that he was
doing at his property located at 4010-4022 Call Field, known as
Old Town. Mr. Dennis explained that the buildings at the
location had been originally constructed with various roof
slopes. In the mid 1970's, new roofs, referred to by Mr. Dennis
as cosmetic roofs, were installed over the existing roofs and
covered. For this reason, Mr. Dennis explained that the original
roofs (that had now been covered by the cosmetic roofs) became
the primary roofs of the buildings and therefore the new cosmetic
roofs did not require the same weather protection as the code
required since the original roofs protected the interior of the
building.
Mr. Dennis stated that recently, the re-roofing of the "cosmetic
roof" was started which involved the installation of new roof
decking and asphalt shingles. Mr. Dennis stated that when the
new shingles were installed felt underlayment was not installed
under the shingles because the new roof was not the primary roof.
He explained that the old original sub-roof was the primary roof
and the new roof was the secondary or "cosmetic roof".
Therefore, Mr. Dennis explained, in his opinion, installation of
an underlayment was not necessary.
Earl Potts, Building Official, responded that the Building Code
specifically requires the installation of an underlayment prior
to placement of shingles. Mr. Potts also reviewed fourteen (14)
reasons why an underlayment is needed for roofs and pointed out
that the shingle manufacturer's installation instructions that
are printed on the shingle packaging clearly list placement of an
underlayment as a primary step in the shingle installation
process.
Mr. Potts explained that, to his knowledge, only two asphalt
shingle roofs had been installed in the city without such
underlayment, those being residences on Stonegate St. that had
also been owned by Dennis Company. In those two cases which
occurred in 1983 according to Mr. Potts, a city inspector had
also stopped the work, Dennis Company had appealed to the
Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the appeal had been
denied.
Also, Mr. Potts stated that there have been numerous cases where
new roof structures have been constructed over existing roof
structures, but in each case the roof covering method for the new
roof was required to comply with the code.
The code requirement for such underlayment was shown to the Board
along with the code requirement for fire rating of roof coverings
in the city, a fire rating that would be voided if the
underlayment were not installed, according to Mr. Potts.
Board member Michael Koen noted that a local roofing contractor,
Nick Merriman of Lydick-Hooks Roofing, was present and asked Mr.
Merriman for his comments. Mr. Merriman responded that
underlayment was a necessary element of roofing installations
that prevented wind driven rain from entering the building and
for protection of the decking if shingles are blown off or
damaged.
Board member George Ross commented that if the Board allowed Mr.
Dennis to omit the underlayment, other contractors or roofers may
use the Board's action as an argument to repeat the same
procedure.
Board member Rebecca Lanmon asked what would be the action of the
inspection department if a citizen were caught roofing his house
without underlayment. Mr. Potts responded that the owner would
be required to install the roof correctly as Mr. Dennis had been
instructed in this case.
Board member Don Boley asked Mr. Potts that since a large amount
of shingles had been installed at the site that, instead of
requiring Mr. Dennis to tear off the shingles, could the Board
allow the existing work to remain and require all new shingles to
be installed properly. Mr. Potts responded that the Board could
rule in any manner that they wished.
Mr. Koen made a motion to approve the appeal of Mr Dennis. Mr.
John Morrison seconded the motion. After discussion, Mr.
Wachsman suggested that the motion be amended to state that the
existing roofing shingles could remain and that additional
roofing would be required to have underlayment. Mr. Koen agreed
to amend his motion to state that "we approve Chuck Dennis'
request for a waiver of the code violation with the requirement
that any future roofs (at the location) be required to have the
underlayment" .
Mr. Wachsman called for the vote on Mr. Koen's amended motion.
The motion to approve the appeal of Mr. Dennis was denied by the
Board by a vote of 6 - 2 . Board members voting to approve Mr.
Dennis' request for a waiver were:
Randy Wachsman and James Foster
Board members voting to deny Mr. Dennis' request for a waiver
were:
Don Boley, John Morrison, George Ross, Lindsey Walker,
Rebecca Lanmon and Michael Koen.
Mr. Wachsman stated that the appeal was denied and adjourned the
meeting at 3 : 15 P. M.
7F-
Randy achsman
‘21-?6266/1-7
Earl Potts, Secretary to the
Board
WIchuta
TEXAS'
BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
May 22 , 1996
Chuck Dennis
Dennis Co.
4600 Belair Blvd
Wichita Falls, TX 76310
SUBJECT: YOUR APPEAL OF THE BUILDING CODE ON MAY 21, 1996
Mr. Dennis:
Your appeal of the Standard Building Code regarding the
requirement for installation of underlayment for asphalt
shingles has been denied by the Building Board of Adjustments
and Appeals.
All the roofing work at 4010-4022 Call Field Road,
completed or proposed, under permit #96-11422 must comply with
this Building Code or any alternate method as approved by the
Building Official,
Respectfully,
Randy Wachsman
Chairman
Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals
VOTE OF BOARD:
For: Against: Absent:
James Foster Donal Boley Ted Litteken
Randy Wachsman Michael Koen Bill Daniel
Rebecca. Lannon
John Morrison
George Ross Jr.
Lindsey Walker
Date Posted: 5/22./96
1300 7th Street PO. Box 1431 817/761-7611 Wichita Falls,Texas 76307
OLD TOWN CENTER
Call Field at McNiel
Wichita Falls, Texas
Parking
McNiel
Avenue
C
2 Story
Parking Parking
Parking
Call Field Road
4iralls'
Wichita
TEXAS
BUILDING INSPECTION
May 03 , 1996
Chuck Dennis
4600 Blair Blvd.
Wichita Falls TX 76310
RE: ROOFING INSTALLATION VIOLATIONS OF 4010 CALL FIELD ROAD
Mr. Dennis;
It has been noted by an inspection that construction repairs at
4010 Call Field Road, under permit iR7-96-11422 is being done contrary
to the provisions of the Building Code as follows; Roofing shingles
have been installed without underlayment, as required by the Building
Code and manufacturers recommendations. Such installation is in
violation of Sections S100 and S103 of the Building Code.
All work (other than for correction of the violation) under this
permit shall immediately cease and may not be resumed until the
violation herein noted and any other violations of the Building Code
have been corrected.
In addition, construction, other than z'oafing is being done in
violation of the Building Code. the permit noted above is for roofing
work only. No permit has been issued for other building repairs and
is therfore being done illegally.
Earl Potts
Building Code Administrator
EP/dk 95/96: 801
Post-It"'brand fax transmittal memo 7671
ILMOMPIIIISIIIESFrom
C ( I T�rt�S t�
Dept. Phone#"I�R( 5ci
11
1300 7th Street PC Box 1431 8171761-7611 Wichita Fats,Texas 76307
Wichita Falls
TE
BUILDING INSPECTION
May 16, 1996
Dear Board Member:
RE: MEETING OF BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
A special meeting of the Board has been called in order to
consider an appeal from a requirement of the Building Code.
Chuck Dennis has submitted an appeal from the requirements of
Section S103 of the Standard Building Code, that requires the
installation of underlayment for asphalt shingles for roof coverings.
The appeal involves the buildings at 4010-4022 Call Field. Mr.
Dennis' construction crew was observed installing the roof covering at
that location without using an underlayment and the work was halted by
the inspector. Mr. Dennis has opted to appeal this code requirement
to the Board.
The meeting has been called for Tuesday, May 21 at 1: 30 P.M. in
Room 500 of the Municipal Auditorium, 1300 7th Street. No other items
are included on the agenda.
Respectfully,
Earl Potts
Building Code Administrator
EP/mb
attachment
1300 7th Street P0, Box 1431 817/761-7611 Wichita Fats,Texas 76307
CITY OF WICHITA FALLS
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF APPEAL
(Type or Print All Information)
Address of Project 4010-4022 Call Field
Legal Description: Lot 1 & 2 Block Subdivision Old Town
Property Owner Dennis Company
Date of Decision of Building Official May 3, 1996
Petitioner's Name Dennis Company
Petitioner's Address 4600 Belair Blvd., Wichita Falls, Texas 76310
Status of Project; Not Started Under Construction X •
Completed Permit Number 96-11422
(If Issued)
Summary of Specific Appeal including Code Sections affected by Appeal:
A{ al Entire Notification Fax Dated May 3, 1996 to include Sections
S100, S101, S102, S103, 102.6 (Alternate Materials and Methods) and
any other section of the Code which may be raised in this fact situation.
Specify in detail, why a variance should be granted. (Note; hardships
involving monetary factors are not valid reasons for granting any variance
or modification)
The Roof Covering Provides Weather Protection For The Building Equal To
And/Or In Excess Of Code.
No Other Work Known To Require A Building Permit Was Done.
(Additional sheets o;: ta may be attached)
Date of Appeal May 10, 1996 �:�,
S`J.gnature of Property Owner (or duly
authorized agent)
Signature of Petitioner
(If Different from Owner)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Address all appeals c/o Building Code Administrator, P. O. Box 1431. The
petitioner must be present at the Board meeting. A separate notice of
appeal must be submitted for each variance or modification request. Any
action taken on this appeal affects only the items listed herein.
FOR BOARD USE ONLY
Date of Hearing Appeal Approved Appeal Approved as
Modified Appeal Denied Vote of Board
Written Decision of Board (Attached)
Signature of Board Chairman
■