1248 NE 99 St (4)June 29th 2000
Metro Code Compliance Section
140 West Flagler St
Miami, Fla.
Dear Mr. Herminio Gonzalez,
While covering Miami Shores while Frank Lubian is on vacation I made a roofing
inspection at 1248 N.E. 99th St. I found some areas that were questionable, I requested
the Contractor or qualifier to meet me an the site. On Wednesday June 28, we agreed to
meet at the site at 11:30, I was there, I waited about 10 minutes, he wasn't there, I had
another quality contractor waiting so I did the other inspection near by, when I returned
he had been there left a ladder, I waited a few minutes and he, William Zebrowski,
returned, as we went up on the roof he seemed highly agitated, he immediately took
several pictures of the area, then proceeded to tell me that he wasn't responsible for this
that or the other thing, that the original architect was at fault, all without me mentioning
any problems yet, like he was setting up a basis for future excuses, I then asked him what
was behind an area that had been re- stuccoed (owner states he charged an additional
$500.00 for this), he stated an L flashing, I asked it the new metal was slipped up
underneath the old original flashing, no answer, I then started to say that if it wasn't, either
a termination bar or shoulder or stucco flash would be in order, however, the instant the
word "termination bar" was mentioned he went ballistic, smacked the wall with his hand,
leaped up and shouted that "I didn't know what I was talking about ", loud enough for
Mrs. Charles to hear inside the house, then started for the ladder muttering that I didn't
know anything about roofing, I asked him if he was an expert in the Code, he then whirled
around and charged back at me in a most threatening manner, I thought he was going to
strike me, however, he stopped, directly in my face, shaking in obvious anger, and shouted
the following verbal abuse, "You are a stupid old fart and should go back to school, you
stupid old fart" he must have liked the sound of that statement since he kept repeating it
over and over any number of times as he crossed the roof, breaking a number of tiles as he
went, descended the ladder, then continued while putting the ladder on the truck.
He then called the Miami Shores Building Department and gave our secretary, Mrs.
Margarita Montiel, another terrible dissertation, she said that agitated was a mild
description of his attitude. Mrs. Charles allowed also that agitated was a mild description
of his attitude.
The owner, Mrs Charles still has a list of other complaints that have not been addressed.
This type of verbal abuse is a violation of civil rights.
This mans violent attitude is cause for
By this letter I request that you assign
inspection of this .roof.
Sincerely
Charles B. Sher, CBO.
CC: Mi. Tom Benton, City Manager
Mr. Michael Fingar, Esq.
Mrs. Charles
Mr. William Zembrowski
concern, I think a severe reprimand is in order.
a qualified roofing inspector to assist me in the final
rIoida Roof Testing Services
1500 West Copans Road — Pompano Beach; Florida 22069
Phone: 954- 975 -9010 Fax: 954 - 956-0990
Florida Roof Testing Services is a Miami — Dade County Approved Testing Laboratory, Certificate # 9T- 1214.01
American Quality Roofing
3600 North Palm Avenue
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024
Re: Roof Inspection of Wall Base Flashing
1248 NE 99 Street
Miami Shores, Florida
Dear Mr. Zebrowski:
As requested Florida Roof Testing Services conducted a visual inspection of the above referenced site
located in Miami Shores, Florida. The structure a two level residence recently re- roofed, utilizing
Concrete Tile and BUR Systems.
As per our telephone conversation June 27, 2000, it was understood that the use of the wall flashing
system utilized in this re -roof application was rejected by a local building official. Reason being the
absence of a termination bar and or counter flashing.
FRT personnel visited the subject site to verify the new flashing system application and found it to be, a
metal base [L] flashing connection to a 1" recessed wall area 6" in height, of a vertical w
[ see application drawing]. Based upon the method of installation you have describe • /12" etal field .
fabricated at a 90° quarter round angle, 6" rise on the adjoining wall and 4" width o ' he de- , installed
over a base sheet, a primed masonry surface, sealed in a bed of mastic and mechan w y attached 3"
.. lit the sloped plane, primed, followed by ply roofing and cap sheet terminated at the primed area set
in hot mopped asphalt. Wire mesh installed prior to the application of stucco and filled to provide a
smooth transition from the existing wall down and over the base flashing.
As per Miami- Dade County Application Standard Protocols Volume 1, PA - 111 -95, section 17 Base
Flashings. It would appear that, you are in compliance, with this protocol and do not require a termination
bar or counter flashing given this particular application, citing requirements allowing for building
movement.
Please refer to PA -111 95 / 17.2.1 Attachment Requirements.
Attached you will find the application protocol section to which we refer to.
Page 1 of 2 FRT Job # 100 -0015
fr
As the subject of its waterproofing capability may arise we would suggest that an additional waterproofing
coating be applied to the newly applied stucco to insure its waterproofing integrity.
Also at issue is a potential of ponding. The subject area located at the rear center, flat section of the
structure. Given its location and size, it would not pose an unfavorable appearance concern. The
removal of this small section of tile would be advisable. The continuation of BUR over this section
should alleviate the possibility of ponding in this area.
We appreciate t e opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions please
do not hesitate call.
a oof
erick Hernandez General anager
Enclosures: detail drawing.
Application protocols.
Page 2 of 2 FRT Job # 100 -0015
.o
JAN
• All termination bar fasteners or anchors shall have a minimum '/."
diameter and shall provide a minimum characteristic resistance force,
as defined in Section 3401.3(a)(15) of the South Florida Building Code,
of 180 lbf, resulting from field withdrawal resistance testing or an
average withdrawal resistance of 180 lbf resulting from laboratory
testing after a 2:1 margin of safety is applied. The Plan Examiner or
Building Official may require a field withdrawal resistance test, in
compliance with Dade County Protocol PA 105, to confirm fastener or
anchor performance.
• All termination bar fasteners or anchors shall be fabricated from similar
or compatible material to that of the termination bar.
• A non ferrous metal bonded sealing washer shall be installed under the
head of each fastener or anchor.
• Fastener or anchor spacing shall be not greater than 8" o.c.
• Nylon or plastic anchors shall not be acceptable.
16.4 Installation Requirements
17. Base Flashings
16.4.1 A continuous bead of Approved sealant shall be applied under or at the top
edge of the termination bar to prevent • water entry. Application of
Approved sealant shall be in compliance with the termination details
published by the Roof System Assembly manufacturer and the sealant
manufacturer's Roofing Component Product Control Approval.
16.4.2 Holes in the termination bar shall be slotted or oversized to allow for
dimensional changes in the metal.
17.1 Materials and Dimensions
17.1.1 For material and thickness requirements, refer to Section 7 of this
Application Standard. Alternatively, sill flashings may be Product Control
Approval Roofing Components.
17.2 Attachment Requirements
17.2.1 Base flashings shall be mechanically attached to the horizontal plane, for
low slope applications, or to the sloped plane, for sloped roof applications,
only. Mechanical attachment of the base flashing vertical leg shall not - be
Page - 42
PA 111
JAN
acceptable unless attachment allows for building movement and
coefficient of expansion for the building.
17.2.2 Mechanical attachment to wood nailers shall utilize Dade County
Approved, minimum 12 ga. annular ring shank nails spaced 4" o.c. with
the fastener row located'" to 1" from the horizontal edge.
17.3 Installation Requirements
17.3.1 Discontinuous Roof System Assemblies
• For base flashings of mortar set and nail on tile systems, refer to Dade
County Application Standards PA 118, PA 119 or PA 120.
For base flashings of other discontinuous Roof System Assemblies,
refer to the Roof System Assembly Product Control Approval.
17.3.2 Base flashings shall be joined by overlapping a minimum of 4" or with the
use of cover or backer plates and Approved sealant, as noted in Section
8.4.2 of this Application Standard.
17.3.3 All base flashing corners shall be mitered and soldered or sealed at corners
with approved sealant.
17.3.4 All metal base flashings shall be primed with ASTM D 41 primer prior to
application of asphaltic roofing products.
17.3.5 Metal base flashings shall be fabricated at an angle slightly greater than
90° create an adequate connection between the vertical leg and the
adjoining vertical wall. See Figure 14, below.
Page - 43
PA 111
•
,.3
Allign edges of vertical and horizontal
base flashing legs and push into vertical
wal creating positive connection with the
vertical base flashing leg.
EIMMINMILIE
Figure 14: Metal Base Flashing Connection with Vertical Wall
17.3.6 Adhered single -ply or modified bitumen Roof System Assemblies not
requiring a cant may be terminated at a primed, minimum 22 ga. 'L' metal
secured to the deck. See Figure 15, below.
1
Coping Cap (Roofward Leg)
Primed, min. 22 ga. 'L' Metal
Top Ply Flashing
Base PIy Flashing
Top PIy Membrane
Base PIy Membrane
Min. #12 Diameter Fasteners
Spaced 12" O.C.
ILWAIMINTALWALWAL
T
Figure 15: Example of Adhered Membrane Roof System Assembly Termination
Page - 44
JAN PA I I I