Page 1 of 1

Question of the Day - #8 Kick out Flashing Confusion

PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:58 pm
by RDavidson
2015 Amended Minnesota Residential Code Section R903.2.1.1 addresses kick-out flashing requirements for existing buildings. The SONAR states that the amendment is intended to encourage uniform enforcement. The rules states that kick-out flashing shall be required when “simultaneously residing and re-roofing”.

Definition of simultaneously: occurring at the same time: exactly coincident

In the interest of uniform enforcement, do you believe that residing and re-roofing ever occur “simultaneously”?

The exception allows the omission of kick-out flashing only when re-roofing is done. The rule requires kick-out flashing with simultaneous installation of roofing and siding. The rule is silent on the matter of only residing. Because the only mandatory language occurs when re-roofing and residing occurs “simultaneously”, literal reading of the text would also exempt kick-out flashing from being installed when residing. Agree?

If you disagree and someone fails to install kick-out flashing when they reside their home, which code section do you cite in the correction notice? Are you going to enforce it as written or make something up?

Re: Question of the Day - #8 Kick out Flashing Confusion

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:56 am
by Steve Nelson
Really bad code change. We were getting compliance for roofing and siding (even though current state interp says no to roofing). So now they can fix a rotted wall intersection, not do any roofing and not put in kickout. See you in ten years.