Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As has been stated in numerous prior posts, Ajen Home Designers (the designer, agent, and presumably builder), is engaging in commercial activities under a revoked business license.

In the case that led to its license being revoked, Ajen and its principal, Norman Soto Perez, constructed at least 70% of a new building without a permit by its own admission. The Investigator on the case claims it was even more than 70% and that they found Soto Perez to be untruthful in their testimony and not credible.

To read about the violation in detail, search “Ajen” on the link below and then once on the summary page for Ajen Home Designers (revoked license # 2705155199), click on “Complains”. From there one can click on the file ID to pull up the PDF of the report.

https://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup

Trust me, plenty like "Ajen" with active licenses that continue to do shoddy work and noone checking. Its the wild west in construction, and specifically in residential construction with close to zero oversight, QC. The County is amiss, post covid they perform "virtual" inspections - the contractor Facetimes the insptector who is sitting at his home and that's how Fairfax County works nowaydays. Regarding, the above job, the inspector actually had to make a visit, given the high visibility.

On the approved plans, there are only two stamped professional engineer’s letters included: (i) the calculations for required load on the stair beams, and (ii) an inspection report on the EXISTING home’s footings (not the new addition itself). No where else are there professional engineer stamps on the design. While Mr. Soto Perez studied engineering in college, he does not have a valid Professional Engineer’s license from what I could find.

Was this an oversight by the County? Highly likely. Even if it was, the County has no liability and can revoke the permit and pursue demolition if they see fit. The onus to comply is on the permittee (the homeowner).

I doubt mr Soto studies anything other than how to swing a hammer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As has been stated in numerous prior posts, Ajen Home Designers (the designer, agent, and presumably builder), is engaging in commercial activities under a revoked business license.

In the case that led to its license being revoked, Ajen and its principal, Norman Soto Perez, constructed at least 70% of a new building without a permit by its own admission. The Investigator on the case claims it was even more than 70% and that they found Soto Perez to be untruthful in their testimony and not credible.

To read about the violation in detail, search “Ajen” on the link below and then once on the summary page for Ajen Home Designers (revoked license # 2705155199), click on “Complains”. From there one can click on the file ID to pull up the PDF of the report.

https://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup

Trust me, plenty like "Ajen" with active licenses that continue to do shoddy work and noone checking. Its the wild west in construction, and specifically in residential construction with close to zero oversight, QC. The County is amiss, post covid they perform "virtual" inspections - the contractor Facetimes the insptector who is sitting at his home and that's how Fairfax County works nowaydays. Regarding, the above job, the inspector actually had to make a visit, given the high visibility.

On the approved plans, there are only two stamped professional engineer’s letters included: (i) the calculations for required load on the stair beams, and (ii) an inspection report on the EXISTING home’s footings (not the new addition itself). No where else are there professional engineer stamps on the design. While Mr. Soto Perez studied engineering in college, he does not have a valid Professional Engineer’s license from what I could find.

Was this an oversight by the County? Highly likely. Even if it was, the County has no liability and can revoke the permit and pursue demolition if they see fit. The onus to comply is on the permittee (the homeowner).

Anonymous wrote:As has been stated in numerous prior posts, Ajen Home Designers (the designer, agent, and presumably builder), is engaging in commercial activities under a revoked business license.

In the case that led to its license being revoked, Ajen and its principal, Norman Soto Perez, constructed at least 70% of a new building without a permit by its own admission. The Investigator on the case claims it was even more than 70% and that they found Soto Perez to be untruthful in their testimony and not credible.

To read about the violation in detail, search “Ajen” on the link below and then once on the summary page for Ajen Home Designers (revoked license # 2705155199), click on “Complains”. From there one can click on the file ID to pull up the PDF of the report.

https://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup

Trust me, plenty like "Ajen" with active licenses that continue to do shoddy work and noone checking. Its the wild west in construction, and specifically in residential construction with close to zero oversight, QC. The County is amiss, post covid they perform "virtual" inspections - the contractor Facetimes the insptector who is sitting at his home and that's how Fairfax County works nowaydays. Regarding, the above job, the inspector actually had to make a visit, given the high visibility.

On the approved plans, there are only two stamped professional engineer’s letters included: (i) the calculations for required load on the stair beams, and (ii) an inspection report on the EXISTING home’s footings (not the new addition itself). No where else are there professional engineer stamps on the design. While Mr. Soto Perez studied engineering in college, he does not have a valid Professional Engineer’s license from what I could find.

Was this an oversight by the County? Highly likely. Even if it was, the County has no liability and can revoke the permit and pursue demolition if they see fit. The onus to comply is on the permittee (the homeowner).

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree about it being harder to remediate, if even possible. The inspection remarks call out "incorrect bolt/threaded rod". Going on what the inspector said, the foundation was presumably poured without first setting the Steel Strong Wall Templates in the correct places before pouring the concrete. These templates and their bolts are critical in supporting the lateral loads of this 3 story addition and preventing building sway.

The templates are supposed to be set before pouring concrete to ensure proper bolt placement. This prevents them from moving and reduces the chance of voids in the concrete around the bolts. The structural integrity of the entire project may be compromised due to this massive oversight as the tolerances could easily be off. The risks are magnified given the addition is three stories. A single story would likely have more workaround possibilities. There is a good chance that the county will not approve and force demolition of the existing work. It would be a strange twist that it is this mistake that ends this comedy of errors, not the zoning encroachment. That being said, there is a non-zero chance the owner can find a solution.

Had the owner gone with a licensed GC, at least they would have a claim against them to recoup losses. Unfortunately for the owner, by acting as the GC, the liability falls solely on them. Pennywise, pound foolish.

For anyone interested, here is a video from Simpson on Strong Wall installation. The link starts at the point for proper setting of the templates in concrete:

https://youtu.be/XLf29yU5M3M?t=215

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree about it being harder to remediate, if even possible. The inspection remarks call out "incorrect bolt/threaded rod". Going on what the inspector said, the foundation was presumably poured without first setting the Steel Strong Wall Templates in the correct places before pouring the concrete. These templates and their bolts are critical in supporting the lateral loads of this 3 story addition and preventing building sway.

The templates are supposed to be set before pouring concrete to ensure proper bolt placement. This prevents them from moving and reduces the chance of voids in the concrete around the bolts. The structural integrity of the entire project may be compromised due to this massive oversight as the tolerances could easily be off. The risks are magnified given the addition is three stories. A single story would likely have more workaround possibilities. There is a good chance that the county will not approve and force demolition of the existing work. It would be a strange twist that it is this mistake that ends this comedy of errors, not the zoning encroachment. That being said, there is a non-zero chance the owner can find a solution.

Had the owner gone with a licensed GC, at least they would have a claim against them to recoup losses. Unfortunately for the owner, by acting as the GC, the liability falls solely on them. Pennywise, pound foolish.

For anyone interested, here is a video from Simpson on Strong Wall installation. The link starts at the point for proper setting of the templates in concrete:

https://youtu.be/XLf29yU5M3M?t=215

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They failed another wind bracing inspection on 2/13. There are a number of problems, and the remarks on the inspection really highlight how shoddy and haphazard this project is. Measuring is not their strong suit. The stop work order is still in effect.

Inspection notes:

"-House wrap needs to be removed to allow for full inspection. Upper floor almost entirely covered. -Nail pattern incorrect in various locations. CS-WSP panels to be 6" on center on edge and 12" on center in field. CS-PF panels to be 3" on center at edge and 6" on center in field. -Several sheets not fully nailed and separating from structure behind. -Missing anchor bolts at interior braced wall panels. -Various top and bottom plates notched at strong walls. -Incorrect bolt/threaded rod installed at strong walls. -Missing blocking under center and each end between the 2 stories of strong walls at both ends. -Missing various fasteners in strong walls. -Will also need to provide protection for DWV pipe in exterior wall 1st floor -Strong walls do not currently match details on plans or Simpson product catalog. After discussion with Simpson Strong-Tie they have confirmed that they have no installation guide for a scenario like this where the strong walls are installed after the wood framing of the walls has been completed and the foundation has been poured. An engineered design will be needed for the use of the strong walls to include all relevant details. A plan revision will be needed, and the design will also need to be submitted to Simpson Strong-Tie for review in addition to the county review. -Need full reinspection. Contractor/individual performing work must be on site for next inspection. -In addition to wind bracing notes, it was noticed that hallway widths by stairs are currently only 35 inches and will need to be 36 inches at final when finished. "

Wowwwww. There's no way the manufacturer will be clearing this janky installation. This inspector was pissed and wants to correct the builder to their face next time. Yikes.

The length makes that look a lot worse than it is. Many of those things are both structurally significant and sloppy, but not necessarily that hard to address. Still, it isn't good that some of those things are still after the last inspection. I wonder if the builder and homeowner are confused about what sort of things they're able to address during a stop-work order.

It's a little unclear from the report, but it sounds like the holdowns weren't installed correctly- missing and/or in the wrong place. They don't need the manufacturer to do anything. They need an engineer to tell them where to put other anchors. That's not uncommon for additions.

The inspector did request that whatever plan an engineer comes up with to be submitted for review to Simpson and then be considered by the County. I am not sure how strict the requests of the inspector are, but this is still a significant complication as it adds further review and another plan amendment (as well as more costs).

I have no doubt that the homeowner will be able to find someone to come up with a report justifying the work in place, however it is unlikely that Simpson will even offer an opinion on the review as they are under no obligation to do so. If they did offer an opinion for some reason, there is no deadline that they are compelled to adhere to. Realistically, I could see them saying we have an approved installation process (which this does not conform with) and we stand by that process alone. The lack of an opinion from Simpson, or one that declines to endorse a favorable engineering report, may (not will) impact the review board’s decision process.

There are too many errors and deviations from the plan to be accidental. I think it is fair to call the structural integrity of this addition into question. Poor workmanship passes inspections all the time, but due to the Homeowner’s self-created issues, the inspectors are applying a much greater level of scrutiny (rightly so in my opinion) and it appears they will not let anything slide…as they say, “them’s the breaks”.

Nevertheless, this project is going to be remaining in regulatory purgatory for the foreseeable future and will continue to atrophy in place. The zoning matter is the albatross in all of this. Resolution of this matter is tied into the original work stoppage. Although there is a BZA hearing in April, that will not be the end of the zoning process as the BZA’s decision is almost certainly going to be appealed to the circuit court by the non-prevailing party. Given how unique and major this issue has become, the Circuit Court will almost certainly hear a valid appeal, and then any decision it makes will likely be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

At least for the county’s sake, it is out of their hands after the BZA hearing and they have no liability or obligations once it makes it to the courts. Well let me rephrase, it is out of their hands until they have to issue a demolition permit and enforce it...if it gets to that point…

i didn't see any metal walls, so I've been assuming the reference to Simpson Strong-Tie is for their holdowns. In that case, it seems far more likely they'd install other holdowns. Unless only a few were installed incorrectly.

It's not just hold downs. If you refer to Drawing S-10 (page 10 of 18) on the building plans, they are using Simpson Steel Strong Wall Panels. Both Garage Portal Systems on Concrete Foundation, and Two-Story Stacked on Concrete Foundations. If you don't have the full plans (or any other reader here), they are available on Accela. Look up the Zoning amendment for the address and the documents are amiable under "attachments" selection on the drop down.


https://www.strongtie.com/products/lateral-systems/strong-wall-shearwalls/steel-strong-wall/shearwalls/steel-installation-standard-application-concrete-foundations

https://www.strongtie.com/sswkits_steelstrongwallshearwalls/ssw2_kit/p/steel-strong-wall-two-story-stacked-wall-connection-kit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They failed another wind bracing inspection on 2/13. There are a number of problems, and the remarks on the inspection really highlight how shoddy and haphazard this project is. Measuring is not their strong suit. The stop work order is still in effect.

Inspection notes:

"-House wrap needs to be removed to allow for full inspection. Upper floor almost entirely covered. -Nail pattern incorrect in various locations. CS-WSP panels to be 6" on center on edge and 12" on center in field. CS-PF panels to be 3" on center at edge and 6" on center in field. -Several sheets not fully nailed and separating from structure behind. -Missing anchor bolts at interior braced wall panels. -Various top and bottom plates notched at strong walls. -Incorrect bolt/threaded rod installed at strong walls. -Missing blocking under center and each end between the 2 stories of strong walls at both ends. -Missing various fasteners in strong walls. -Will also need to provide protection for DWV pipe in exterior wall 1st floor -Strong walls do not currently match details on plans or Simpson product catalog. After discussion with Simpson Strong-Tie they have confirmed that they have no installation guide for a scenario like this where the strong walls are installed after the wood framing of the walls has been completed and the foundation has been poured. An engineered design will be needed for the use of the strong walls to include all relevant details. A plan revision will be needed, and the design will also need to be submitted to Simpson Strong-Tie for review in addition to the county review. -Need full reinspection. Contractor/individual performing work must be on site for next inspection. -In addition to wind bracing notes, it was noticed that hallway widths by stairs are currently only 35 inches and will need to be 36 inches at final when finished. "

Wowwwww. There's no way the manufacturer will be clearing this janky installation. This inspector was pissed and wants to correct the builder to their face next time. Yikes.

The length makes that look a lot worse than it is. Many of those things are both structurally significant and sloppy, but not necessarily that hard to address. Still, it isn't good that some of those things are still after the last inspection. I wonder if the builder and homeowner are confused about what sort of things they're able to address during a stop-work order.

It's a little unclear from the report, but it sounds like the holdowns weren't installed correctly- missing and/or in the wrong place. They don't need the manufacturer to do anything. They need an engineer to tell them where to put other anchors. That's not uncommon for additions.

The inspector did request that whatever plan an engineer comes up with to be submitted for review to Simpson and then be considered by the County. I am not sure how strict the requests of the inspector are, but this is still a significant complication as it adds further review and another plan amendment (as well as more costs).

I have no doubt that the homeowner will be able to find someone to come up with a report justifying the work in place, however it is unlikely that Simpson will even offer an opinion on the review as they are under no obligation to do so. If they did offer an opinion for some reason, there is no deadline that they are compelled to adhere to. Realistically, I could see them saying we have an approved installation process (which this does not conform with) and we stand by that process alone. The lack of an opinion from Simpson, or one that declines to endorse a favorable engineering report, may (not will) impact the review board’s decision process.

There are too many errors and deviations from the plan to be accidental. I think it is fair to call the structural integrity of this addition into question. Poor workmanship passes inspections all the time, but due to the Homeowner’s self-created issues, the inspectors are applying a much greater level of scrutiny (rightly so in my opinion) and it appears they will not let anything slide…as they say, “them’s the breaks”.

Nevertheless, this project is going to be remaining in regulatory purgatory for the foreseeable future and will continue to atrophy in place. The zoning matter is the albatross in all of this. Resolution of this matter is tied into the original work stoppage. Although there is a BZA hearing in April, that will not be the end of the zoning process as the BZA’s decision is almost certainly going to be appealed to the circuit court by the non-prevailing party. Given how unique and major this issue has become, the Circuit Court will almost certainly hear a valid appeal, and then any decision it makes will likely be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

At least for the county’s sake, it is out of their hands after the BZA hearing and they have no liability or obligations once it makes it to the courts. Well let me rephrase, it is out of their hands until they have to issue a demolition permit and enforce it...if it gets to that point…

i didn't see any metal walls, so I've been assuming the reference to Simpson Strong-Tie is for their holdowns. In that case, it seems far more likely they'd install other holdowns. Unless only a few were installed incorrectly.

It's not just hold downs. If you refer to Drawing S-10 (page 10 of 18) on the building plans, they are using Simpson Steel Strong Wall Panels. Both Garage Portal Systems on Concrete Foundation, and Two-Story Stacked on Concrete Foundations. If you don't have the full plans (or any other reader here), they are available on Accela. Look up the Zoning amendment for the address and the documents are amiable under "attachments" selection on the drop down.


https://www.strongtie.com/products/lateral-systems/strong-wall-shearwalls/steel-strong-wall/shearwalls/steel-installation-standard-application-concrete-foundations

https://www.strongtie.com/sswkits_steelstrongwallshearwalls/ssw2_kit/p/steel-strong-wall-two-story-stacked-wall-connection-kit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They failed another wind bracing inspection on 2/13. There are a number of problems, and the remarks on the inspection really highlight how shoddy and haphazard this project is. Measuring is not their strong suit. The stop work order is still in effect.

Inspection notes:

"-House wrap needs to be removed to allow for full inspection. Upper floor almost entirely covered. -Nail pattern incorrect in various locations. CS-WSP panels to be 6" on center on edge and 12" on center in field. CS-PF panels to be 3" on center at edge and 6" on center in field. -Several sheets not fully nailed and separating from structure behind. -Missing anchor bolts at interior braced wall panels. -Various top and bottom plates notched at strong walls. -Incorrect bolt/threaded rod installed at strong walls. -Missing blocking under center and each end between the 2 stories of strong walls at both ends. -Missing various fasteners in strong walls. -Will also need to provide protection for DWV pipe in exterior wall 1st floor -Strong walls do not currently match details on plans or Simpson product catalog. After discussion with Simpson Strong-Tie they have confirmed that they have no installation guide for a scenario like this where the strong walls are installed after the wood framing of the walls has been completed and the foundation has been poured. An engineered design will be needed for the use of the strong walls to include all relevant details. A plan revision will be needed, and the design will also need to be submitted to Simpson Strong-Tie for review in addition to the county review. -Need full reinspection. Contractor/individual performing work must be on site for next inspection. -In addition to wind bracing notes, it was noticed that hallway widths by stairs are currently only 35 inches and will need to be 36 inches at final when finished. "

Wowwwww. There's no way the manufacturer will be clearing this janky installation. This inspector was pissed and wants to correct the builder to their face next time. Yikes.

The length makes that look a lot worse than it is. Many of those things are both structurally significant and sloppy, but not necessarily that hard to address. Still, it isn't good that some of those things are still after the last inspection. I wonder if the builder and homeowner are confused about what sort of things they're able to address during a stop-work order.

It's a little unclear from the report, but it sounds like the holdowns weren't installed correctly- missing and/or in the wrong place. They don't need the manufacturer to do anything. They need an engineer to tell them where to put other anchors. That's not uncommon for additions.

The inspector did request that whatever plan an engineer comes up with to be submitted for review to Simpson and then be considered by the County. I am not sure how strict the requests of the inspector are, but this is still a significant complication as it adds further review and another plan amendment (as well as more costs).

I have no doubt that the homeowner will be able to find someone to come up with a report justifying the work in place, however it is unlikely that Simpson will even offer an opinion on the review as they are under no obligation to do so. If they did offer an opinion for some reason, there is no deadline that they are compelled to adhere to. Realistically, I could see them saying we have an approved installation process (which this does not conform with) and we stand by that process alone. The lack of an opinion from Simpson, or one that declines to endorse a favorable engineering report, may (not will) impact the review board’s decision process.

There are too many errors and deviations from the plan to be accidental. I think it is fair to call the structural integrity of this addition into question. Poor workmanship passes inspections all the time, but due to the Homeowner’s self-created issues, the inspectors are applying a much greater level of scrutiny (rightly so in my opinion) and it appears they will not let anything slide…as they say, “them’s the breaks”.

Nevertheless, this project is going to be remaining in regulatory purgatory for the foreseeable future and will continue to atrophy in place. The zoning matter is the albatross in all of this. Resolution of this matter is tied into the original work stoppage. Although there is a BZA hearing in April, that will not be the end of the zoning process as the BZA’s decision is almost certainly going to be appealed to the circuit court by the non-prevailing party. Given how unique and major this issue has become, the Circuit Court will almost certainly hear a valid appeal, and then any decision it makes will likely be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

At least for the county’s sake, it is out of their hands after the BZA hearing and they have no liability or obligations once it makes it to the courts. Well let me rephrase, it is out of their hands until they have to issue a demolition permit and enforce it...if it gets to that point…

i didn't see any metal walls, so I've been assuming the reference to Simpson Strong-Tie is for their holdowns. In that case, it seems far more likely they'd install other holdowns. Unless only a few were installed incorrectly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They failed another wind bracing inspection on 2/13. There are a number of problems, and the remarks on the inspection really highlight how shoddy and haphazard this project is. Measuring is not their strong suit. The stop work order is still in effect.

Inspection notes:

"-House wrap needs to be removed to allow for full inspection. Upper floor almost entirely covered. -Nail pattern incorrect in various locations. CS-WSP panels to be 6" on center on edge and 12" on center in field. CS-PF panels to be 3" on center at edge and 6" on center in field. -Several sheets not fully nailed and separating from structure behind. -Missing anchor bolts at interior braced wall panels. -Various top and bottom plates notched at strong walls. -Incorrect bolt/threaded rod installed at strong walls. -Missing blocking under center and each end between the 2 stories of strong walls at both ends. -Missing various fasteners in strong walls. -Will also need to provide protection for DWV pipe in exterior wall 1st floor -Strong walls do not currently match details on plans or Simpson product catalog. After discussion with Simpson Strong-Tie they have confirmed that they have no installation guide for a scenario like this where the strong walls are installed after the wood framing of the walls has been completed and the foundation has been poured. An engineered design will be needed for the use of the strong walls to include all relevant details. A plan revision will be needed, and the design will also need to be submitted to Simpson Strong-Tie for review in addition to the county review. -Need full reinspection. Contractor/individual performing work must be on site for next inspection. -In addition to wind bracing notes, it was noticed that hallway widths by stairs are currently only 35 inches and will need to be 36 inches at final when finished. "

Wowwwww. There's no way the manufacturer will be clearing this janky installation. This inspector was pissed and wants to correct the builder to their face next time. Yikes.

The length makes that look a lot worse than it is. Many of those things are both structurally significant and sloppy, but not necessarily that hard to address. Still, it isn't good that some of those things are still after the last inspection. I wonder if the builder and homeowner are confused about what sort of things they're able to address during a stop-work order.

It's a little unclear from the report, but it sounds like the holdowns weren't installed correctly- missing and/or in the wrong place. They don't need the manufacturer to do anything. They need an engineer to tell them where to put other anchors. That's not uncommon for additions.

The inspector did request that whatever plan an engineer comes up with to be submitted for review to Simpson and then be considered by the County. I am not sure how strict the requests of the inspector are, but this is still a significant complication as it adds further review and another plan amendment (as well as more costs).

I have no doubt that the homeowner will be able to find someone to come up with a report justifying the work in place, however it is unlikely that Simpson will even offer an opinion on the review as they are under no obligation to do so. If they did offer an opinion for some reason, there is no deadline that they are compelled to adhere to. Realistically, I could see them saying we have an approved installation process (which this does not conform with) and we stand by that process alone. The lack of an opinion from Simpson, or one that declines to endorse a favorable engineering report, may (not will) impact the review board’s decision process.

There are too many errors and deviations from the plan to be accidental. I think it is fair to call the structural integrity of this addition into question. Poor workmanship passes inspections all the time, but due to the Homeowner’s self-created issues, the inspectors are applying a much greater level of scrutiny (rightly so in my opinion) and it appears they will not let anything slide…as they say, “them’s the breaks”.

Nevertheless, this project is going to be remaining in regulatory purgatory for the foreseeable future and will continue to atrophy in place. The zoning matter is the albatross in all of this. Resolution of this matter is tied into the original work stoppage. Although there is a BZA hearing in April, that will not be the end of the zoning process as the BZA’s decision is almost certainly going to be appealed to the circuit court by the non-prevailing party. Given how unique and major this issue has become, the Circuit Court will almost certainly hear a valid appeal, and then any decision it makes will likely be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

At least for the county’s sake, it is out of their hands after the BZA hearing and they have no liability or obligations once it makes it to the courts. Well let me rephrase, it is out of their hands until they have to issue a demolition permit and enforce it...if it gets to that point…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They failed another wind bracing inspection on 2/13. There are a number of problems, and the remarks on the inspection really highlight how shoddy and haphazard this project is. Measuring is not their strong suit. The stop work order is still in effect.

Inspection notes:

"-House wrap needs to be removed to allow for full inspection. Upper floor almost entirely covered. -Nail pattern incorrect in various locations. CS-WSP panels to be 6" on center on edge and 12" on center in field. CS-PF panels to be 3" on center at edge and 6" on center in field. -Several sheets not fully nailed and separating from structure behind. -Missing anchor bolts at interior braced wall panels. -Various top and bottom plates notched at strong walls. -Incorrect bolt/threaded rod installed at strong walls. -Missing blocking under center and each end between the 2 stories of strong walls at both ends. -Missing various fasteners in strong walls. -Will also need to provide protection for DWV pipe in exterior wall 1st floor -Strong walls do not currently match details on plans or Simpson product catalog. After discussion with Simpson Strong-Tie they have confirmed that they have no installation guide for a scenario like this where the strong walls are installed after the wood framing of the walls has been completed and the foundation has been poured. An engineered design will be needed for the use of the strong walls to include all relevant details. A plan revision will be needed, and the design will also need to be submitted to Simpson Strong-Tie for review in addition to the county review. -Need full reinspection. Contractor/individual performing work must be on site for next inspection. -In addition to wind bracing notes, it was noticed that hallway widths by stairs are currently only 35 inches and will need to be 36 inches at final when finished. "

Wowwwww. There's no way the manufacturer will be clearing this janky installation. This inspector was pissed and wants to correct the builder to their face next time. Yikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They failed another wind bracing inspection on 2/13. There are a number of problems, and the remarks on the inspection really highlight how shoddy and haphazard this project is. Measuring is not their strong suit. The stop work order is still in effect.

Inspection notes:

"-House wrap needs to be removed to allow for full inspection. Upper floor almost entirely covered. -Nail pattern incorrect in various locations. CS-WSP panels to be 6" on center on edge and 12" on center in field. CS-PF panels to be 3" on center at edge and 6" on center in field. -Several sheets not fully nailed and separating from structure behind. -Missing anchor bolts at interior braced wall panels. -Various top and bottom plates notched at strong walls. -Incorrect bolt/threaded rod installed at strong walls. -Missing blocking under center and each end between the 2 stories of strong walls at both ends. -Missing various fasteners in strong walls. -Will also need to provide protection for DWV pipe in exterior wall 1st floor -Strong walls do not currently match details on plans or Simpson product catalog. After discussion with Simpson Strong-Tie they have confirmed that they have no installation guide for a scenario like this where the strong walls are installed after the wood framing of the walls has been completed and the foundation has been poured. An engineered design will be needed for the use of the strong walls to include all relevant details. A plan revision will be needed, and the design will also need to be submitted to Simpson Strong-Tie for review in addition to the county review. -Need full reinspection. Contractor/individual performing work must be on site for next inspection. -In addition to wind bracing notes, it was noticed that hallway widths by stairs are currently only 35 inches and will need to be 36 inches at final when finished. "

Wowwwww. There's no way the manufacturer will be clearing this janky installation. This inspector was pissed and wants to correct the builder to their face next time. Yikes.

The length makes that look a lot worse than it is. Many of those things are both structurally significant and sloppy, but not necessarily that hard to address. Still, it isn't good that some of those things are still after the last inspection. I wonder if the builder and homeowner are confused about what sort of things they're able to address during a stop-work order.

It's a little unclear from the report, but it sounds like the holdowns weren't installed correctly- missing and/or in the wrong place. They don't need the manufacturer to do anything. They need an engineer to tell them where to put other anchors. That's not uncommon for additions.