2019-10-09 Minutes
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL (IDAC)
THE MINUTES OF THE IDAC MEETING
Location: Lucille Harrell Conference Room, Government Center
Date: October 9, 2019
Scheduled Duration: 3:30 pm 5:00 pm
IDAC Members present David Smith, Sean Lewis, Gary Pape, William Loeber, Stephen Beacham, Pete Avery.
Special Guest Attendees: County Commissioner Rob Zapple; Cameron Moore, Executive Officer of WCFHBA.
NHC Building Safety Staff: Nicholas Gadzekpo, Building Safety Director; Hans Schult, Building Safety Assistant Director;
Teresa McCormick, Building Safety Systems Coordinator; Gina Bombolino, Development Services Supervisor;
Chief Code Compliance Officers Arthur Malpass, Randal Gray, and Edward McCaleb;
Code Compliance Officers James Stokley, Bill Thornton, and Suzanne Keenan;
Development Services Specialists Rebecca Lee, Cheryl Cooper, Christine Donahue, Sheila McNeil,
s Office: Tim Burgess, Deputy County Manager.
Other County representatives present: None.
Chairman David Smith opened the meeting at 3:35 pm. He thanked everyone in attendance for coming and
said he thought there was a quorum to conduct IDAC business. Chairman Smith also introduced William
Loeber, the new IDAC member, and stated that those reappointed by the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners were until 2022.
Chairman Smith referred to the Agenda and asked Nicholas Gadzekpo (Nicholas) to begin with matters related
to the minutes.
Nicholas stated that he prepared a rough draft of the minutes and would revise it later for the Council (IDAC).
Nicholas said the rough draft was to provide some background on the numerous items discussed during the
meeting of August 14, 2019. Nicholas commented on how fruitful and beneficial the discussions were on the
legislative items. He also commented on the discussions IDAC had with staff on job cards, EIFS, and Roof
Inspections. Nicholas then asked Chairman Smith about some follow-up items that the Chairman had
promised to report on, from the North Carolina Building Code Council, specifically, the matters related to EIFS
and the problems and liabilities with Roof Inspections.
Chairman Smith said he met with the Building Code Council and that the Council did not see the need for a
code change on EIFS since installers On the matter of roof
inspections, Chairman Smith said there was no code change resolution on that matter.
Nicholas informed IDAC that almost 45 minutes was spent in the last meeting discussing the subject matter.
Chairman Smith implied that the liability should ultimately fall on the builder. He said that as a builder, he
holds himself responsible for the work he executes, and so do the codes. Hhow
many times have inspectors lost their jobs because of roofing inspections or inspections they could not see to
properly document on the site?
Commissioner Zapple stated that the disconnect with the issue relates to how there should be inspections in a
high wind area such as New Hanover County. And if homeowners maintain their roofs then their houses would
be protected from water intrusion, etc., and that there has been much publicity on how homeowners can
maintain their roofs. Commissioner Zapple believed there should be a statement of understanding, such as
m New Hanover County on ro state that the county is
not liable for omissions made by a roofer or builder; or that a structural engineer (in some cases) could certify
the roofing construction. But that the county must -on and say something abou
Chairman Smith said he agreed, and said, it typically comes under the discussion that there must be six nails
per shingle in our area, and if you looked in our codebook But the builder
may not be around while installations take place, maybe not any of the time, and then the Inspector only
Chairman Smith said, I am not sure what else the Council can do except to put
it in the code and say this is the way you install it, and hold the builder responsible (Page 1 of 11)
Nicholas said he thought there were some innovative tools that the department could use, referring to a
statement or observation made by Randal Gray (Randal) on how the use of drones could document the
different stages of roof construction. Randal made a comment during the discussions in the August 14, 2019,
IDAC meeting, when he stated that solar panel installers could use drones to document the solar panels
mounted on roofs. Nicholas remarked that likewise, in the case of roofing construction, all the details of the
Chairman Smith remarked that he was not sure how an image from a drone of a finished roof would convey
any form of compliance for the installation.
Nicholas said the use of the drones to document the construction, while in progress, could reveal more than
the completed construction would show. Nicholas also mentioned the possibility of using videotaped copies of
the construction in progress, keeping those as part of the permanent permit and inspections records for the
property in question.
Chairman Smith commented that and expense. He said
that quite possibly, some jurisdictions might have already requested their inspectors to avoid climbing on
Chairman Smith said that in time past, contractors provided access from parts of the sheathing to allow
inspectors to place a ladder and scale up to a height to view small portions of the roof; but that he is not sure
if that method is still current.
of the other items from our last meeting were more like updates updates on the continuing education for
Nicholas said that
the meeting covered a lot of discussions and that he would reformat the rough draft and provide a cleaner
copy to all the members of IDAC.
Chairman Smith asked if IDAC could vote on approving the minutes?
Nicholas replied that it was only a rough draft and that IDAC could approve the revised version at a later date.
He also said he was available to answer any questions related to the items discussed and covered in the
minutes.
Commissioner Zapple commented about the pressure on the roofs increasing with the new 150 mph wind
speed assigned to the coast of New Hanover County, and that the assigned speed remains. He thinks there
should be a creative way to address the matter with homeowners and the consumer. He described a scenario
where a roof with insufficient fasteners receives impact from the high winds that could easily blow away the
shingles, attack the roof sheathing, and with the roofing gone the house is subject to more damage, etc.
Nicholas said that Commissioner Zapple made a strong point because when using structural analysis for
designing buildings, the impacts of winds are more pronounced at about 33 feet above ground-level than at
ground level and, therefore, roofs become the targets.
Chairman Smith said that Commissioner Zapple was correct and that what happened a long while back
in Charleston after Hurricane Hugo, I was part of a team that went down there, and saw what stayed together
easy to see the nailing pat
old a story about how secure or insecure the nailing patterns may
have been. Chairman Smith said that mething that can be done about this matter
getting ready to start continuing education for contractors for the first time, and I would hope that ƷƩğźƓźƓŭ ƚƓ
ƩƚƚŅźƓŭ he problems that
homeowners are having, those are the first items to address. Because every contractor and their qualifiers,
with licenses, are going to be seating in a room somewhere in the State for training, and the trainers will get a
chance Ʒƚ Ļĭŷƚ ƷŷĻ ĭƚķĻ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ĬǒźƌķĻƩƭ. T (Page 2 of 11)
There was a question about what other municipalities may be doing in South Florida and Texas?
and jurisdictions are using the IRC (Intern
with amended texts.
Nicholas reiterated that
Chairman Smith said there should be a new argument because the matter will come up again and may not be
about roofs per se. ones who know what was installed were those who saw
what and how the roof was installed, whether they missed a nailing pattern And so
builders have to reinforce to their subcontractors;
Nicholas mentioned how roofing inspections could be time-consuming if an inspector has to be present all day
at the job site while the roofer is taking all day to go through the nailing patterns, etc. And that the county
does not have the staffing capacity to assign an inspector on a roofing inspection while there were other
equally important but less time-consuming inspections to perform. Nicholas thinks that there should be an
element of trust between the builder/roofer and the Inspector and vice-versa, in such a way, that maybe a
percentage sampling of the roof could represent a fair assessment of the whole.
Chairman Smith said, the percentages could be acceptable but that it only takes, say, a five or ten percent
defect and the complaint calls would not cease from coming to the department, the mayor, the city council, or
Board of Commissioners, depending on the location of the roof defect.
Chairman Smith then called for the next item on the Agenda, which had Informational Updates.
Nicholas read the names of the re-appointees to IDAC. They were as follows: David Smith (Chairman, at-large,
with an expiring term on July 31, 2022). Sean Lewis, with an expiring term on July 31, 2022. Garry Pape, with
an expiring term on July 31, 2022. William Loeber, newly appointed to IDAC Nicholas then asked William
Loeber whether he had received all the previous emails Nicholas sent to him on the past 2019 meetings,
minutes, agendas, etc. William Loeber acknowledged receiving all of them. Nicholas extended a welcome to
him then read the names of the
other members Steve Beacham, with a term expiring on July 31, 2021; Randy Siegel, with a term expiring on
July 31, 2021; Pete Avery, with a term expiring July 31, 2021, and Rudy Dombrowski, with term expiring on July
31,2021. Nicholas remarked that for the first time, in a long time, IDAC is adequately represented.
Next, Nicholas introduced to the Council, the recently promoted and recently-hired staff from the Building
Safety Department. He remarked that the department now boasts of eight promotions of employees in 2019.
The employees promoted in 2019 were Randal Gray, to Chief Code Compliance Official; Edward McCaleb, to
Chief Code Compliance Official; Jay Stokley, promoted to Senior Code Compliance Official; Suzanne Keenan
(Suzanne), promoted to Code Compliance Official. Nicholas then invited those introduced to say a few words,
if they were so inclined.
Nicholas called on Suzanne, who also gave a summary of her new duties.
Commissioner Zapple asked Suzanne if she was now working in the field?
Suzanne replied saying she works some hours in the office doing plan reviews, and some in the field
performing inspections, all based on the needs of the customers on any given day.
Nicholas said Suzanne represents one of the good stories in the department. That, she started as a
Development Services Specialist, working on permit application intake, permit issuance, helping walk-in
customers, etc., and recently obtained ICC (International Code Council) certification as a Permit Technician.
And now, working in the field, she is also doing quite well.
county inspectors in the State
ķƚ ƭƚ
And, he explicitly stated the reason really, I would
like guys on my job site to know who is walking up claiming to inspect work on the site is really an inspector
Nicholas sought for clarification and asked Chairman Smith,
are you talking about the badges that look like the police badges?(Page 3 of 11)
; it identifies the person wearing it
Nicholas said there were past incidents (before his tenure) where certain employees (who are no longer here)
were flashing their badges and intimidating the public. After those incidents, the use of such badges ceased.
anybody thinking back of when
Nicholas responded that he is not implying the badges themselves were the problem. He said that just the
mere way the Inspectors job titles read is in itself a testament to how the county wants to work with the
public to solve problems and not to be the type of enforcement officers who intimidate people in any way,
even with badges. and with their job titles, they
work together with the public to arrive at compliance. But there should be no perception from the public of
the use of any form of brute force, whether subtle, to demand compliance with codes.
Chairman Smith said there were more jurisdictions in the State using the badges than those not using
badges
Nicholas said he thought the county issued identification was sufficient and that no issues have stemmed
from using that form of identification. but
Arthur Malpass (Arthur) and Hans Schult (Hans) said they once had badges.
I may be the only one wanting this, bu
n follow up on the identification, the county issued placards to inspectors to place on their
vehicles, identifying them as representing the county when
Arthur said that the issued placards were in additiond identification
number, to readily validate persons claiming to perform inspections on behalf of the county.
Next, Nicholas informed IDAC of the four employees (Temporary employees) promoted from the Call Center
to the fulltime position of Development Services Specialists. They were Christine Donahue, Cheryl Cooper,
Rebecca Lee, and Sheila McNeil each employee briefly gave a summary of their duties and some unique
aspects of their respective duties, particularly, how they helped customers daily. Next, Nicholas introduced the
four new Code Compliance Officials (with Inspector profiles). They were Troy Jordan, Robert Burrows, and
Michael Swinehart, and were not present at the IDAC meeting. According to Randal Gray, their immediate
supervisor, they were performing electrical inspections in the field. Nicholas asked Randal of the number of
electrical inspections for that day. Randal replied that there were 106 inspections divided among seven
inspectors. Nicholas introduced Bill Thornton (Bill), the fourth Code Compliance Official. Bill spoke briefly
about his background as an Architect from New York, and his current duties as a Code Compliance Official in
New Hanover County. He mentioned the North Carolina certifications he has an Inspector. He touched on his
dual responsibilities in assisting with both plan reviews and field inspections, working to help customers at
their point of need.
Next, Nicholas introduce, stating that they manage the
scheduling of all inspections. He gave an example of a particular day when, after Hurricane Dorian, the
department received a total of 453 inspection requests, and completed them all in one day without any
rollovers. Nicholas then invited Arthur Malpass (Arthur) to inform IDAC of how the Chiefs manage the daily
inspections.
Arthur stated how the Chiefs, working together as a team, communicating with each other daily, set up the
inspections for Inspectors. Arthur cited some examples of how the Chiefs work together to deploy inspectors
to field assignments, and how crucial it is to use the load-balancing of workloads and identify multi-trade
inspectors during the process. And that, inspectors have been trained to also communicate with their peers in
the field and
assigned work earlier than anticipated. Arthur said the Chiefs answer phone questions, assist DSC and walk-in
customers with any technical questions, serve as designees for the Assistant Director, help prepare the
(including, code updates at least once a week, going over NCDOI informational memos, cross-training
regimens, newsletter articles for WCFHBA, and the use of technology in the field). (Page 4 of 11)
through and has been approved and can now be used?
slow the State takes to provide its updates online, andto which, Chairman Smith concurred, and said that the
State had received requests to speed up their process for online postings. Arthur also remarked that he often
concurred. There was an open discussion on the updates and their effective dates.
Hans and Arthur both stated that the department exercises great caution in meticulously differentiating
between the respective effective dates of those updates and then communicates such differences to field staff
to ensure staff correctly applies the updates.
Arthur commented on the flexibility in using alternative methods, and that the Chiefs have
always championed that cause for customers. Arthur said,
department to strive to find a path for compliance and not to ŷǒƩƷ
Arthur answered in the affirmative by sayinge keep them all in a book (binder)
and you get to an area where interpretation has
been ƒğķĻ, do you have any way of knowing that or how ķƚ Ǥƚǒ ƉƓƚǞ
Arthur responded by saying yes. He also commented on some of the various written documents used for
correlating updates and interpretations, and on their effectiveness, even agreeing with Chairman Smith on
now
rsion or the enhanced version; I think they call it
the enhanced version allows you to put sticky notes on the ķźŭźƷğƌ ƦğŭĻ
Arthur that Chairman Smith was likely referring to the ICC online code library that has the basic online version
and the premium version enhanced for note-taking capabilities and markups, etc.
nhave access to a version online, but we have books that
ed version that is online, and if you download it on your
indicating that though not budget-friendly, o the ķźŭźƷğƌ
codebook, in terms of sticky notes, memos, etc.
Arthur agreed but provided another perspective that centered on the Inspectors, and the preference for
related comments on the timing and
release of information from NCDOI. And, for that,
questions is because of the staff at NCDOI, quite often, we solved that problem because we send them a copy
ŅƚƩ a builder or inspector. They spend a lot of time putting them together,
and if they
they to blast an email to every Inspector in the State send out every interpretation directly
to each Inspector. I thought you go Nicholas responded that
Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ {ƷğƷĻ Arthur commented that the Mechanical Inspectors Association is a model example of how
timely its members receive information. C
ted, and Chairman Sely bring it up
stated that Cliff Isaac (the Deputy Commissioner at NCDOI) has been very receptive and listens to
what we have asked. Citing the availability of informal interpretations, Chairman Smith pointed out the
priority of the formal interpretations; but wished there was a catalog listing of all the informal interpretations
as well, to benefit the code professionals in the State. Arthur said he recalls that Mike Causey (NCDOI
Commissioner) send a message referencing formal and informal interpretations. Chairman Smith asked,
promised to email the message to him. (Page 5 of 11)
Next, Nicholas introduced Gina Bombolino (Gina), Development Services Supervisor, to provide a few
highlights on how she and her staff provide services to customers amidst the challenges they face daily. And
she emphasized that the department takes pride in helping solve problems for customers. Gina began by
stating that she has worked for the county for twenty years, and had been with Development Services which
had different names as the years went along. She said that she is one of the eleven staff members who
provide customer service to the DSC (Development Services Center). Gina said that when faced with
I (or we) I (we) challenges,
and challenges present opportunities to grow, and that is my personal view.
with her team daily. in DSC ever since EnerGov started;
it is an awesome program, I lovbut it has its challenges just like any other
that new expectations were not only up
with staff, but also with internal and external customers. There were opportunities for focused training of DSC
staff and the cross-training needed, even on internal processes and COAST processes. Gina said the focused
training of DSC staff was necessary so that DSC staff could, in turn, provide training to customers. Eventually,
DSC staff provided one-on-one training to customers and also group training for customers who came with
their group of employees. Some of the training was on the phone others were in-person. Overall, all of the
training sessions provided were effective and benefited the respective customers.
Gina continued by saying the following: s; as you know, no
system is perfect and this one is not perfect.tends to shut down - we
would be helping someone or a customer and then all of a sudden,
restart.
sends a notification out to customers that the plan review was never approved
there was an internal process to keep from upsetti
By implication, it was obvious that the challenge the customers faced was due to no fault of theirs nor the
e program. with
the new internal process, DSC staff found a way to be able to issue the permit and so it does not affect the
sers to neutralize the impact of the EnerGov shut- Gina's
statement was about Internet Explorer, which was the main browser for EnerGov on the Cloud. Tyler/EnerGov
was having difficulties with that browser's use, and therefore, IT in New Hanover County installed Chrome as
the backup browser. Chrome operates as the backup when there is no capacity for Internet Explorer.
Gina continued by mentioning the challenge of e budgeted
for additional staff
Gina touched on the issue with weather as a challenge, saying, She cited the events
from Hurricane Dorian and said, "New Hanover County offices were closed, but the customers were not
closed, they were busy filing permits and documents through COAST, they were at home having a 'permit'
party on COAST. There were permit applica Consequently, the result was how
staff became inundated with high volumes of reviews to perform for the days that corresponded to the office
closures but yet did not provide a break for staff upon staff's return back to the office. To tackle the new
challenge, Gina said she and her staff created an alternate and temporary work schedule which required
staff to sacrifice their out-of-office schedules and efforts to bring the overdue statuses back to current.
Gina continued by mentioning additional challenges, stating the needed DSC interfacing with Complaint
Monitoring/Code Cases going live and Environmental Health going DSC had to create a schedule,
amidst their heavy customer in-person contacts, to attend pilot training sessions to bring DSC up-to-speed. For
Environmental processes
uties. Gina said DSC now ably assists customers in the intake
for Environmental Health. Gina acknowledged the less-than-a-minute of wait times on phone calls in the Call
Center compared to not having a Call Center. She also spoke of some innovative changes made to staff hours,
and measures in place to meet the deadlines and high demands for service placed on DSC staff. (Page 6 of 11)
ned Environmental Health; is it the well inspections? Is it the
Gina replied, "customers are coming in, who need to pay a fee, it could be they want to apply for a permit, it
may include their desire to reuse an existing septic system. So, we have been taking walk-in customers for
Environmental Health and assisting them on COAST and on how to apply for permits. Afterward,
Environmental Health takes over from where our assistance ends." Hans quickly interjected, "Hey Rob, this is
part of the vision for the Central Intake for DSC, you know, and they are well-on-their way at doing that."
is it doing well
just Hans and Nicholas both replied by
mentioning education because it is mostly about learning the processes of other departments.
Hans said, "finally, may I say one more thing?" "Because Nicholas will soon dismiss the DSC attendees present
at this IDAC meeting to their respective afternoon duties." And, speaking to all present, Hans continued by
saying, "we are very fortunate to have them here." And with Hans addressing the DSC staff, he said, "we are
thankful for you to join our team." There were several mentions of "thank you" together with great applause
for the DSC staff as the DSC staff began to exit.
Next on the agenda, and still under Informational Updates, Nicholas informed IDAC of some outreach work
that the department embarks on, from time to time. He mentioned that Brianna Grella (Brianna) made a
COAST presentation at the Rotary Club. And although Brianna was not present at the IDAC meeting, Teresa
McCormick (Teresa) briefly read a summary of the . The structured
presentation was in September and lasted about 20 minutes; during which time, she obtained positive
feedback from the audience. Hans also said that there were a lot of good and meaningful questions from the
audience and that Brianna handled those questions professionally.
Next, under Informational Updates (on COAST/EnerGov Updates for improvements, new version, etc.),
Nicholas called on Teresa to provide IDAC with some latest updates. Teresa mentioned how she and the staff
had worked every day on challenges that customers and staff have faced using the COAST and EnerGov. "The
system was not perfect, and we obtained it while the system was in its transition towards a newer version
(update), and had lots of 'workarounds' and internal modifications to make so the customer could use COAST
and staff, in turn, could work with unimpeded workflows." Teresa mentioned the EnerGov Change
Management Committee, of which she is a member of, and informed IDAC of the committee's mission. She
said the inter-departmental committee addresses changes proposed on behalf of customers or a department
and weighs in on how it impacts various departments. Teresa mentioned, as an example, a change that
Building Safety had proposed but yet affected other departments, and how that change went through the
committee for vetting and approval. She said it was bad practice to suggest changes that would have
detrimental effects on other departments and their workflows. Hans interjected and quickly cited the example
of the digital solution for the Inspections Report (that would replace the job card), and how even that proposal
went through the Change Management Committee. He then said, "we will be talking about that proposal later
during this meeting." Teresa informed IDAC that the department would be busy in November and December
testing the new upgrades for EnerGov, ahead of the proposed implementation slated for the coming calendar
year. She also mentioned that the upgrade could come with the Request Monitoring and Code Case modules,
under Tyler 311. She said, currently, the department gets a lot of complaint calls on work without permits as
savvy citizens are looking on COAST and not finding traces of those permits. And that most of the complaint
calls and emails do not have automated tracking. Teresa then elaborated that the modules would allow the
general public to submit trackable complaints on buildings and properties. Another module would also
monitor requests, in general, made to the county. Teresa informed IDAC that Nicholas had, in the interim,
assigned Randal Gray (Randal) to manage and monitor the complaints and code cases, and it is a manual
process (not automated). Teresa said that there were about 146 complaints, and most of them were on 'doing
work without permits.' After go-live, there will be an online portal for . (Page 7 of 11)
Cameron Moore asked whether the work done without permits was simply by contractors with licenses or
those working
Hans said sometimes it is about the contractors with licenses doing work without permits. Teresa commented
that all indications showed the categoriesas work done without permits.
Chairman Smith remarked that most of the time, staff might not be aware until the filing of the complaint.
Teresa said any suggestions to help reduce the occurrence of those violations would help.
Cameron Moore said he thinks there would be opportunities for a strong partnership with the county and
builders to come together and help prevent these issues.
has participated in some viewings of the new version of the EnerGov updates scheduled for 2020 roll-out, and
will be in a vantage position to help staff and customers with all the pending changes and modifications.
Next, on the agenda, Chairman Smith asked for the progress repoResolving Inspections Job Card issue
Hans, before providing the progress report, distributed (to all attendees) a paper copy of the report on
townhome permits the
Job Card issue). Additionally, Hans had timed the distribution of the report to coincide with just when he
noticed that Commissioner Zapple was just about to exit from the meeting, and handed a copy of the report to
Commissioner Zapple. Commissioner Zapple explained that there was a matter that needed his immediate
attention, so those who heard it thanked him for coming.
Hans, using the large projection screen and a laptop, gave a presentation via COAST to demonstrate how
customers would easily download the Inspections Report by clicking on the printer icon on the permit display
page. Hans gave some more explanations and mentioned that the Inspections Report was an interim fix until
when Tyler/EnerGov has a solution for the fixbearing in mind that the pending upgrade of EnerGov could
present some other opportunities for other solutions. Hans also mentioned that with the new upgrade,
another reconfiguration would have to go through the Change Management Committee again. And that the
stakeholder departments may or may not want the modification, depending on how it would impact them.
Cameron Moore wanted to know why a simple Inspection report for building inspections should involve other
departments.
Hans and Teresa both explained that other departments also have inspections they perform and that the
current COAST permit page in which the print icon resides, and from which the Inspection Report uses to
generate the download, is also used by other departments and so they would have the rights to weigh-in on
any modifications to the COAST permit page. Hans and Teresa continued by commenting that other
departments and review agencies, like the City of Wilmington, Environmental Health, etc., all have other
permits besides building permits. And for example, Environmental Health has well permits and septic tank
permits, each with different workflows and inspection protocols. However, each would still use the COAST
permit page, and so any proposed modifications to the COAST permit page by Building Safety would need
input from Health.
Hans mentioned that it took a meticulous process to arrive at the viable solution, beginning from inception
when he and an Inspector met with the select group of builders to collaborate on possible solutions; then,
next present the proposal to IT and then to Tyler/EnerGov in the presence of the Change Management
Committee. Hans said that, first, Tyler/EnerGov could not work with the proposal using its current version
unless making cost-prohibitive modifications. But, IT staff found that the county could use items already in
place on the COAST permit page and found the Print icon to be the probable solution since every other
character and index on the page could not be modified. Teresa also offered some remarks.
The discussions on this subject matter continued for about another ten minutes.
Cameron Moore remarked that, at least, in concept, the proposed Inspections Report would be better as an
excellent solution than the job cards and the job boxes used on-site to store the job cards. (Page 8 of 11)
Next, Hans commented on the copy of the report on Townhouse permits that he had given to Commissioner
Zapple, at the time when Commissioner Zapple was leaving the IDAC Meeting. Hans said that though
Commissioner Zapple had requested the report several meetings ago, the report was not ready until today's
meeting. Hans mentioned the report was only available after submitting a ticket to IT to generate the report
for permits records from August 2019 until October 8, 2019. Hans said that there were 69 such townhouses on
the permit records.
Nexton the Agenda, Nicholas asked Hans Schult (Hans) and Jay Stokley (Jay) to begin
the open
Randal said another county had also noticed the problem and has been in touch, and have been seeing point
loads in second stories. Chairman Smith interjected, inferring that he assumed there would be revised
drawings needed in those instances? Randal agreed and continued by saying that the placement of the point
loads (he continued by using an example of over 5,000-pound load)
would superimpose some structural problems not previously accounted for
with design loads. Chairman Smith, seeking more clarity, tried using the analogy of a curtain wall construction
Hans concurred
Chairman Smith then asked if there was a solution other than an engineered design?
Hans said there was none other ƭƚƌǒƷźƚƓ than an engineered design.
much of an option
ing to start watching for these and Ǟƚǒƌķ ǞğƓƷ Ʒƚ ğƌĻƩƷ
ƷŷĻ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ğĬƚǒƷ ƷŷĻ ƚǝĻƩƌƚƚƉĻķ ĭğƭĻƭ ƚŅ ƦƚźƓƷ ƌƚğķƭ͵
The implication that some responsible parties for
Edward McCaleb (Edward)
discussions. And, the discussions continued.
Then Randal mentioned some ŅźƓķźƓŭƭ from Onslow County.
Cameron Moore
As the discussions continued and covered matters related to Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), an engineered
wood product, you are talking about LVLs that are resting on exterior walls?
In response, Randal and Hans and Arthur all said yes.
And concerning Cliff Isaac (Deputy Commissioner of Insurance) who had initially given an opinion (to Randal)
which sparked a heightened interest in the subject matter of point loads, Oh, Cliff,
he is an engineer?And then, Randal, Nicholas, Hans and Arthur, all affirmed so in agreement.
s you see this on drawings/designs with open concepts
Randal saida unit above the garage, and the garage comes out a little further
and that second floor wall goes and rests on the top of the garage . Hans
below LVL spans the length for the structure above .
Chairman Smith then some of ƷŷĻƭĻ ƨǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭ, some of you know Steve
Knight; he is a structural engineer who sits on the Building Code Council. This (matter) is not brand new here. I
guess my concern is, is coming to the surface sort-of now or
s been about two months or so
Hans and Randal agreed, citing it was not just an issue with one particular builder.
ǞŷğƷ ŷĻ Ʒƚƌķ
Ǥƚǒ He remarked that there might not be new code actions to cover this IDAC item discussed. (Page 9 of 11)
Again, Hans remarked that the
awareness of the problem to the building community.
after additional related discussions, Chairman Smith asked Edward about the time that the engineer would
make the presentation to the Inspectors. Edward said that the Inspectors will have a training session on
Monday at 8 am, and will hear from an engineer who will talk about the continuous load path in structural
members of buildings. Edward asked if Chairman Smith was interested in attending the training session and
then extended an invitation to him.
Next, Cameron Moore gave a copy of the WCFHBA to Nicholas and told him
about the contents of the publication and the pages where Building Safety could insert timely information.
Cameron Moore said that Jay Stokley (Jay) had reached out to him to inquire of where to enter monthly
informational updates from the Building Safety Department
available for code information from the Building Safety Department.
Next on the Agenda, was the subject on the IDAC Meeting dates for 2020. Nicholas
asked the Council if they had any preferences on how the meeting dates should be set? Nicholas asked if the
Council wanted quarterly meetings instead of meeting every two months? Nicholas remarked that the
previous meetings had touched on some crucial topics and that they were helpful. Chairman Smith said that,
as an offshoot, he took the two topics namely Roofing Inspections and EIFS to his Committee, and they too
had lengthy discussions on them. According to Chairman Smith, at least, the topics came to the forefront.
There were additional open discussions on the schedule and format of the IDAC meetings; some, even
did not have a problem with the current bi-monthly schedule.
Next, still under New Business, there was no report on the Continuing Education for Contractors.
Next, under New Business, was the reference to the 2019 International Code Council (ICC) Conference and
Code Change Hearings. Nicholas informed the Council that he would be attending the conference and code
change hearings to vote on the proposed changes to the 2018 ICC Codes for the 2021 ICC Codes, which North
Carolina would adopt and amend for 2024.
Chairman Smith remarked on the challenges that the NC Building Code Council faces during each code change
cycle, pointedly, on changes made to sections numbers by ICC and the need for how to correspond the
references to those section numbers mentioned in the code. Chairman Smith implied that the misprints and
amended code documents.
Nicholas informed the Council that the voting on the 2021 ICC Codes would begin on Wednesday, October 23,
2019, and end on Wednesday, October 30, 2019.
Next on informational updates, Chairman Smith said his Ad Hoc Committee now meets each month. He said,
ive to me or whatever ğƩĻ ĬƩƚǒŭŷƷ ǒƦ as well as all the others in the State. At the
we will have two codebooks to go through, the North Carolina Bui
Chairman Smith gave some examples of what the Ad Hoc Committee was working on diligently.
going to be
ƩĻƷǒƩƓźƓŭ ĬğĭƉ some of ƷŷĻ ƌğƓŭǒğŭĻ
gave the reasons for the change.
Carolina Residential Code because after Cliff (Isaac) and some our Engineers redid this and looked, the current
(Page 10 of 11)
uncil in
December. And from the middle to end of November, you will be able to see all these proposals. And you may
have some comments, and if you do, please feel free to
Next, Chairman Smithpresent,
saying, the sizing and spacing and how many you have to put forth, and so on, theres going to be a
side? Is it two, He mentioned that the absence of such accurate details poses
significant concerns when users of the code are referring to the incorrect informationnd so if
we get this proposal in, if nothing else, it will be a guideline,
Chairman Smith referred to the starting newell, l in the code, starting
dimension can be greater than 38 inches.He remarked that Building Inspectors have turned down
dimensions of 38 inches or above, because of the language that refers to a limit, as misunderstood by
Inspectors. Chairman Smith commented that some builders had installed them at heights above 38 inches, and
in reality, those heights are not causes for concerns.
back so that you only have to
have one egress as the main egress door not needing a key, but can have a latch. The others are going to be
able to have a key ğƭ ǞźƷŷ ğƌƌ ƷŷĻ ƚƷŷĻƩ ƦƩƚƦƚƭğƌƭ ing to be a year before they will be
saying that the deletion of the section would emphasize clarity,
and avoid confusion, instead of rewriting the section. He provided the supporting reasoning that the North
Carolina Code already had a Table that addresses the requirement Table R302.1.
He reminded all that the items he highlighted today would be B items and would become C items. The items
could change if there is public input that necessitates changes to the proposals.
ĬğƭźĭğƌƌǤ going back to the
He mentioned Appendices or the Appendix Chapters of the code, and how some clerical errors mistakenly
suggested that local jurisdictions could adopt the Appendix Chapters. The misrepresentation was because the
person(s) transcribing the text was merely copying word-for-word whatever the charging statement was in the
ICC codes for the adoption of the Appendix Chapters.
Chairman Smith then hinted that there would be a proposal in Appendix M on cantilevered girders and
cantilevered floor joists. He said a lot of code users did not think the text was clear enough.
by steel angles and Section 708; these two Tables in the
codebook ƭŷƚǞźƓŭ ŅƌğƭŷźƓŭ are completely wrong. He said there were arrows pointing to the incorrect
members of the assemblies
. And
ğĭƷǒğƌƌǤ , He said that
would not be hard to replace the Tables, drawings, etc., but would just need someone to sit down and do it.
Chairman Smith ended his presentation at todHe
expressed frustrations at the fact that he did not even see the 2018 code until after its publication.
Chairman Smith made the motion to adjourn. Pete was the seconder. The meeting ended at 5:19 pm (circa).
Submitted by:
Nicholas Gadzekpo, Building Safety Director
New Hanover County (Page 11 of 11)