NYS rough cut lumber codes intensifying.

[jwilly3879]

As an inspector what I find is things like a 2x10 EWP floor joist or rafter full of 4 to 5" knots, or large knots on the bottom of rafters. That goes back to the person doing the construction. Some don't care and some just don't understand. Its not a problem with the sawyer. My friend got a call to come cut some lumber and when he got there all the good logs had been sold and what was left was a pile of pine pulp that the LO wanted sawed.  He wanted all 2" to use on home addition. My friend convinced him to just use it for siding.

As I said before, it is how the lumber is used that is the problem. I have found that quite often rough cut is more expensive than SPF dimensional framing lumber.

[FarmingSawyer]

In the early '90's they tried to railroad rough cut lumber out of construction in WA when I was there building and working mills. The local building inspector's answer was to require over dimensioned lumber for structural members.....so, if the print called for 2x10's you had to use 2x12 rough. Worked in the mill's favor and there are some DanG strong houses that got built.....

[Peter Drouin]

As an inspector what I find is things like a 2x10 EWP floor joist or rafter full of 4 to 5" knots, or large knots on the bottom of rafters. That goes back to the person doing the construction. Some don't care and some just don't understand. Its not a problem with the sawyer. My friend got a call to come cut some lumber and when he got there all the good logs had been sold and what was left was a pile of pine pulp that the LO wanted sawed.  He wanted all 2" to use on home addition. My friend convinced him to just use it for siding.

As I said before, it is how the lumber is used that is the problem. I have found that quite often rough cut is more expensive than SPF dimensional framing lumber.

I have refused to cut junk logs into 2x. You're right, they sell the best and want to cut the rest. Or have a land owner log his land call me to cut a barn out. I told the land owner watch the logger , Make sure they leave good logs to cut the frame. I get there and all, there's left is pulp. : :D :D :D

[jwilly3879]

I was called to a home where the owner had added an unpermitted porch to the rear of his home. It was constructed with rough cut EWP and when the snow slid off the main house it broke all but 2 rafters on the porch, it was a total collapse and fortunately the only injury was to the porch furniture and BBQ grill but it would have killed anyone out there. He had cut all the lumber himself but had no idea that the knots would weaken the rafters, he like the rustic look.

I agree that rough cut has built many homes without problems but they were built when craftsmanship was a source of pride and there were also many structures built that are no longer here because they failed.

[Foxtrapper]

I was called to a home where the owner had added an unpermitted porch to the rear of his home. It was constructed with rough cut EWP and when the snow slid off the main house it broke all but 2 rafters on the porch, it was a total collapse and fortunately the only injury was to the porch furniture and BBQ grill but it would have killed anyone out there. He had cut all the lumber himself but had no idea that the knots would weaken the rafters, he like the rustic look.

I agree that rough cut has built many homes without problems but they were built when craftsmanship was a source of pride and there were also many structures built that are no longer here because they failed.

Lack of building skills is a big problem.  Under sized rafters, joists or exceeding freespan lengths are an accident waiting to happen.  Just because you can drive a nail and cut a straight line doesn't mean you are skilled enough to build a house, and some folks just don't understand that..

[mikeb1079]

thanks beenthere and logboy, that's an informative link and a sensible approach to this issue imo.  i will have to try to take that course at some point. 

[ohwc]

This is exactly why we barely have anything produced in the US anymore is because of rules like this. If you use rough cut the inspector still has to approve before close in would be a simple fix to this problem. I am sure taxpayers would not object to an inspector receiving grade training for this purpose.

[Dave Shepard]

We can get a Native Lumber stamp in MA. It has a mill name and number, assigned by the authority, and a species, such as hemlock of pine. If you stamp this lumber, it must meet No.2 grade, and will only be accepted as No.2, even if it is select structural. This provides a liability trail for the Native Lumber. This stamp is only good for a stationary mill. My architect has a lumber stamp for his broad axe.  :D You could become a lumber grader with a grade stamp, but that would be very expensive, and require a large volume of lumber sold, and you would have a hard time competing with the commercially available framing lumber being shipped in from other countries.

[AnthonyW]

In the early '90's they tried to railroad rough cut lumber out of construction in WA when I was there building and working mills. The local building inspector's answer was to require over dimensioned lumber for structural members.....so, if the print called for 2x10's you had to use 2x12 rough. Worked in the mill's favor and there are some DanG strong houses that got built.....

I have heard a story like this before. The prints said 2x10 and 2x10 finish lumber had in fact been been used. But the lumber was 1 1/2 x 9 1/2 when measured. Duh, it was finished a 2x10 so of course it was 1 1/2"x9 1/2". So the next size up had to be used for each framing member listed on the prints. The inspector's take was the prints were a minimum size and did not specify actual size, rough, or finished. I tell this as third or fourth hand.

[beenthere]

If you use rough cut the inspector still has to approve before close in would be a simple fix to this problem. I am sure taxpayers would not object to an inspector receiving grade training for this purpose.

Just that a look at the entire piece is needed to determine the grade. Plus, rejecting a piece after it is installed in a floor or roof wouldn't go over very well with the builder.

Once heard of a huge housing development in the Chicago area where 16' joists were (by the house designs), trimmed back to a shorter length (15' IIRC). The contractor had all the joist material cut off to length but they removed the end with the grade stamp.
After much ta-do, they finally allowed an exemption to assume all the joists met the grade necessary. But for awhile it was a stand-off between the grading agency (would not grade material in-place), the contractor, and the building inspector.

[Dave Shepard]

If you use rough cut the inspector still has to approve before close in would be a simple fix to this problem. I am sure taxpayers would not object to an inspector receiving grade training for this purpose.

Just that a look at the entire piece is needed to determine the grade. Plus, rejecting a piece after it is installed in a floor or roof wouldn't go over very well with the builder.

Once heard of a huge housing development in the Chicago area where 16' joists were (by the house designs), trimmed back to a shorter length (15' IIRC). The contractor had all the joist material cut off to length but they removed the end with the grade stamp.
After much ta-do, they finally allowed an exemption to assume all the joists met the grade necessary. But for awhile it was a stand-off between the grading agency (would not grade material in-place), the contractor, and the building inspector.

As a builder, it would be your obligation to use the right stuff. If you don't know what is right, you are going to learn an expensive lesson. There are several inspections throughout the building process, and rough framing is one, IIRC.

[Joe Hillmann]

Plus, rejecting a piece after it is installed in a floor or roof wouldn't go over very well with the builder.

For a single piece to be rejected it have to be far worse than just below grade.  Up to 5% of graded lumber is acceptable to be below the grade it is marked for.   Both when grade stamped or in the Wisconsin local use dimensional lumber(WLUDL).  With graded lumber if it is better than the grade it is in it gets pulled out and put in a higher grade unless it is graded as   ....or better.  With the WLUDL there is no higher grade so even if 5% is below grade there will also be a lot that will be way above grade making the over all quality of the lumber used probably better than graded lumber.  Add to that the fact that with WLUDL everyone involved has a vested interest in making sure good materials and methods are used and in some cases the materiel will be be actual size or larger rather than 1/2 inch smaller as is the case with graded lumber which makes it even stronger. 

Using either WLUDL or graded lumber, white pine with knots so large that a stud will snap in half under just it's own weight would be up to code.  But that same white pine shouldn't be use on building that aren't required to be up to code.  And that is where knowing what you are doing comes into play.

[logboy]

Here's a scenario I was met with when framing houses. We were way out on a job site far from the lumber yard, and ran out of 2 x4 lumber for the basement. We only needed a few, and couldnt wait, so we decided to rip down some 2 x 6. Along comes the inspector who says you cant do that or they might not make grade. We didnt understand at the time and the boss got mad, but he was right. A knot that takes up 1/3 the face of a 2 x 6 still makes stud grade. If you rip it, and the knot suddenly becomes 1/2 the face, then it doesnt.  It was a good catch by the building inspector. Yes, they are a royal pain sometimes for no reason, but if youve seen some of the horrendous new construction out there, you'll be glad they are there.

[jwilly3879]

Unfortunately building codes are viewed as unnecessary government intrusion. I spend much of my time trying to educate the public as to why something is required. Floor framing is a good example," why do I need 2x10 joists, the old house is only 2x6, I don't care if my floor is bouncy." Explain that in the event of a fire the floor with 2x6 will collapse much faster than a 2x10 allowing you to escape or give the firefighters time to get you out without having the building collapse on them. The other issue is egress windows, why does it have to be so big, I can get out that opening. Explain that a firefighter with a scott air pack standing on a  ladder can't get in to rescue your unconscious body and they begin to see the light.

My main goal as a building inspector is to promote life safety. Our local code organization has coined the phrase, "First Preventors," if I do my job correctly you may not need the "First Responders."

[mikeb1079]

good post jwilly 

[Dave Shepard]

I agree! 8)

[Foxtrapper]

Unfortunately building codes are viewed as unnecessary government intrusion. I spend much of my time trying to educate the public as to why something is required. Floor framing is a good example," why do I need 2x10 joists, the old house is only 2x6, I don't care if my floor is bouncy." Explain that in the event of a fire the floor with 2x6 will collapse much faster than a 2x10 allowing you to escape or give the firefighters time to get you out without having the building collapse on them. The other issue is egress windows, why does it have to be so big, I can get out that opening. Explain that a firefighter with a scott air pack standing on a  ladder can't get in to rescue your unconscious body and they begin to see the light.

My main goal as a building inspector is to promote life safety. Our local code organization has coined the phrase, "First Preventors," if I do my job correctly you may not need the "First Responders."

Building codes are all fine and dandy, til they get so restrictive that they become unreasonable.  Case in point is the increase in insulation requirements to R42 for ceilings this year.  The only way you can reach that R value is with foam insulation, which is expensive.  The other one I can think of right off hand is the septic laws, which require an engineer to come out and tell you what you need to install, and how it should be installed.  It adds cost to an already expensive project.  Which is ok if your lot is small, and there might be a chance of polluting someone else's land.  But when you own enough land that there is zero chance of that happening, then you shouldn't be required to have an engineer come out and tell you what you need.  Besides, most local contractors know what needs to be done, and how to do it..

[jwilly3879]

The requirement for an engineer is part of the NYS Education Law, believe it or not. Prior to 2005 the enforcement officer for septic systems would look up the requirements based on # of bedrooms and percolation rates. A lawsuit brought by an unemployed engineer in western NY against a local inspector for practicing design without a license put a stop to that practice.

I have also seen many septics installed by experienced contractors that failed for a number of reasons, usually high groundwater or impermeable soils.

The insulation requirements were mandated by the federal government (Dept of Energy) and passed down to the states if they wanted federal money. Once again, if an engineer is involved in the design of the building and it can be shown that the building can meet federal standards lesser amounts of insulation can be used. The program to do the calculations is available for free (RESCHECK) from the DOE.

[beenthere]

Gone, or going fast, are the days when a young fella can afford to have some land and a desire to build a home that is affordable on an average salary or wage. Can't do it on a shoestring any more.

I look back and wouldn't have been able to do it 50 years ago when I made it happen. Now near can't afford the upgrades and repairs when they have to meet the Gov't specs, be it DOE or EPA, or whatever many other titles these Gov't programs have.

But the plan is for Gov't to run our live's as the Gov't knows best what is good for us. Pretty scary thought, IMO.

[Peter Drouin]

Unfortunately building codes are viewed as unnecessary government intrusion. I spend much of my time trying to educate the public as to why something is required. Floor framing is a good example," why do I need 2x10 joists, the old house is only 2x6, I don't care if my floor is bouncy." Explain that in the event of a fire the floor with 2x6 will collapse much faster than a 2x10 allowing you to escape or give the firefighters time to get you out without having the building collapse on them. The other issue is egress windows, why does it have to be so big, I can get out that opening. Explain that a firefighter with a scott air pack standing on a  ladder can't get in to rescue your unconscious body and they begin to see the light.

My main goal as a building inspector is to promote life safety. Our local code organization has coined the phrase, "First Preventors," if I do my job correctly you may not need the "First Responders."

: : : :

[jwilly3879]

In my years as a contractor I dealt with several municipalities and many different building inspectors and never let them know I was a building inspector in my town. As several others have posted some can be a pita, I tried to learn from the good ones and vowed never to be like the bad ones. I try my best to make the permit process as painless as possible and often offer some alternatives which will make the job simpler or save money. Other towns seem to make it as hard as they can, the power trip, I have often argued an inspector's call on certain things and asked to see the code section they were citing. Usually they were incorrect in their understanding of what was written. If the Code is to be enforced it should be as written, not as interpreted. The codes, as I understand them have a logical reason for being there, as I said ,USUALLY. The codes are not written by the inspectors but by politicians and lawyers under the umbrella of the Code Council, a for profit organization that makes money selling Code Books. I make no claim to understand all the codes or agree with everything but I do understand why they are needed. The reason is to have safer buildings and to protect lives. No person in the right mind would want to build a home that was unsafe for their families and my job is to help them build and live safely. The building inspector should be your friend, not your adversary. 

[ohwc]

Jwilly,

   And thus the problem. We have come so far from life safety in some municipalities it is ridiculous. Its more about municipal revenue than anything else. Fact is the grading is not hard to understand. It should be no problem for an inspector to be able to do it and a contractor to understand it. This has more to do with cornering a market than life safety. If all of this was about life safety we would not have the highest fire incident rate and death rate of all developed nations. We would have sprinklers in high threat areas in all residences etc. We don't. Why? Cost. Even though it would tack on less than 6k for a wet pipe system in the kitchen, furnace area etc. If the life safety aspect was such a problem you would also not be able to build with rough lumber in many areas not adopting the codes. If the government wants to adopt this stuff they really should reevaluate the whole process of stamping the lumber. If someone needs protection from themselves then that is just natural selection. Just my opinion.

[4x4American]

You know what if if it's my DanG house and I want to build it my way and it collapses on my head then so DanG be it.  Why does the gov't care if it falls on my head?  The helmet law? Who's that helping?  They're raising the tax on cigarettes again in NY.  I don't smoke, but it's bull, the gov't is making a ton of money off people's addictions.  The cost of chew is through the roof.  The camera's at stop lights.  It's all for $.

You should be responsible for your own actions.

I believe that the Gov't should only be concerned about protecting us from each other, not from ourselves.

It makes me sick to think where our society will be 30 years from now.  I just don't see it getting any better.  Unless of course there's some sort of revolution or good people get into the offices.

[4x4American]

Survival of the fittest.

[ohwc]

4x4,

   Not to get off topic. But down in Houston they can not use the cameras to give tickets now. The city spent a ton of money on this also. But what they failed to take into account is the driver is the one who gets ticketed and they can not prove who is driving the car. Darwin 1 City Lawyers 0