The Stutler's TK Experience
CODE VIOLATIONS

VERTECH  INC.
INSPECTION & CONSULTING SERVICES
P.O. Box 43187
Cincinnati, Ohio 45243
Telephone: 513.738.2431  Fax: 513.791.8904 
STEVE VERSSEN, MECHANICAL ENGINEER
Date of Inspection: January 8, 2003
Place: 12830 Cleek Lane
Client: Mike Stutler
CIO Robert Trainor, Esq.
The Carroll House
216 East Fourth Street
Covington, Kentucky 41011 -1759
Present at inspection: Kathy Stutler
Orientation: Faces approximately Southwest
Vertech was contracted to perform a follow up inspection and evaluation at the above address involving several defects with the brick veneer and exterior building envelope construction. On this date with the aid of a masonry contractor several wall cut outs were made. The following narrative is intended to be comprehensive and complete, but does not represent all items that were detailed, checked, and inspected. The following items are those warranting comment, concern, and/or follow-up.
The structure is a single family, 1 story residence built on a cast in place concrete foundation, approximately 2 years old.
EXTERIOR INSPECTION:
In all brick wall samples, we found excessive mortar occlusion, poor mortar tooling and a lack of a clear air space.
There was a very high percentage of wall areas that had less than the 1” air space, as required by building code.
There are also a significant number of areas where the cavity space is essentially 100% occluded.
I was also able to observe that the brick veneer ties utilized on this house do not meet the minimum requirements of the building code. This is a significant structural deficiency.
There was no flashing or weep holes at the window, door lintels and the window and door sills as required by the building code.
Client should understand that the lack of flashing and weeps, in combination with the poor sill pitch, is a formula for wall leakage and its attendant damage.
Page 1 of4
Member:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) American Society of Home inspectors (ASHI) Cert. #007389
international Code Council (ICC) Certified Inspector Exterior Design Institute (OHIO)
American Indoor Air
Quality Council (IAQ) Certified Mk3obial Consultant (CMC)

Weep hole placement is very irregular and very poorly installed which does not comply with the requirements of the building code.
PARTIAL SUMMARY OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
VIOLATION OF 1995 CABO One Two Family Dwelling CODE
PROPER FLASHING, VENEER TIES, AND WEEP HOLES MUST BE PROVIDED TO
MEET
THE 1995 CABO RESIDENTIAL CODE FOR ONE AN]) TWOFAMILY
DWELLINGS.
VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 703.7.2.2
In all wall samples removed, it is clear:
THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO MAINTAIN A CLEAR 1” AIR SPACE AS
REQUIRED. if IS ALSO CLEAR HEAT THE WALL CAVITY WAS NOT
COMPLETELY FILLED AS AN ALTERNATIVE.
VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 703.7.3
It
is clearly evident that there is:
NO FLASHING OR WEEP HOLES AT THE STEEL LINTELS AS REQUIRED.
VIOLATION OF
BUILDING CODE SECTION 703.7.3
It
was further verified that there is:
NO FLASHING OR WEEP HOLES AT THE SILLS AS REQUIRED.
VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE 707.7.4
There is visible evidence that the:
WEEP HOLES ARE IMPROPERLY SPACED AND POORLY INSTALLED. THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES THEM AT 33” O.C.
VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE 703.7.2.1.
The Building Code section 703.7.1 requires veneer ties; or, if of corrugated sheet metal, shall not Page 2 of 4

be less than No. 22 U.S. gage and a minimum of 7/8 inches wide. No.22 U.S. gage decimal equivalent of galvanized sheet metal = 0.0336 inches.
THE STUTLER RESIDENCE TIES MEASURE APPROXIMATELY 0.019 INCHES OR
NO.28 GAGE.
THE CLIENT SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS REPRESENTS A 43.5%
REDUCTION IN GAGE THICKNESS. THIS DOES NOT MEET
THE PROVISIONS OF
THE BUILDING CODE. THIS ALSO REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH
REDUCTION
AND MAJOR STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY>
OVERVIEW:
It is essential that proper installation and flashing details on the exterior building envelope be followed. This includes but is not limited to the windows, doors and brick veneer.
It remains my opinion that the observed brick problems were caused by poor workmanship and lack of proper supervision.
This represents substandard work below an acceptable standard of performance.
It is my professional opinion based on education, training and field experience that the Stutler construction project, which does not meet the provisions of the building code has a very high probability of ongoing failure involving moisture intrusion and mold growth as well as continued structural deterioration.
It is also my professional opinion, based on education, training and field experience, that client should anticipate future leakage and associated water damage problems, if these conditions are not properly addressed. I would assign a 90-95% exposure rate based on examined conditions as located within the wall cavity.
It is further my opinion that the lack of proper corrective action by the builder; represents fraudulent behavior. I believe anyone can make a mistake, but I believe it is immoral to. continue to deny these obvious construction flaws. It is the responsibility of the builder to know and understand the building code. The building code is a minimum standard. These defects not only do not meet the building code but also do not meet the installation guidelines of the manufacturers.
Furthermore, this builder is very aware of the consequences of this poor workmanship. I consulted on another TK home in Oxford, Ohio where the builder agreed to rebuild the home including mold remediation under my consulting supervision.
RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS:
1. Based on
this follow up investigation a proper remediation plan would include the removal and disposal of brick veneer, windows, doors and wall covering completely. Properly install all new brick as a quality system over a properly installed wall covering and flashing system, following installation guidelines of the Brick Industry Association. A complete remediation
Page 3 of 4

plan should be written after window and siding investigation is complete,
2. This remediation work will be performed by a contractor who specialized in restoration work of this type. Homeowner reserves the right to approve final contractor selection. Three such firms would be Hicon, American Chimney & Masonry, Olde World Masons.
3. A complete mold remediation of the wall cavity and basement is also required.
CLOSE:
This report is based on an inspection of the listed items and does not include any other systems of the property.
Latent and concealed defects and deficiencies are excluded from this inspection.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report represent my opinion of the existing structure. Vertech Inspections Inc. is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendation made by others based on the information in this report.
This inspection involved limited invasive techniques only, and no material testing has been done as part of this report.
Neither this survey nor this report constitute an exhaustive technical evaluation.
This report is prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the client. This report is based on apparent conditions existing at the time of this inspection only. The conditions of the property may change due to factors such as water and moisture leaks, actions taken by owner or others, or the passing of the time itself.
The client must accept responsibility for all risks for items which are not reasonably detectable within the scope of this inspection.
I have made eveiy effort to perform a comprehensive and thorough inspection with recommendations for this property. I do not offer or imply any warranties or insurance to cover possible errors or hidden defects, if you have any questions regarding this inspection or need further evaluation, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Vertech Inspections
steve Verssen
President
Page 4 of 4

VERTECH  INC.
INSPECTION & CONSULTING SERVICES
P.O. Box 43187
Cincinnati, Ohio 45243
Telephone: 513.738.2431  Fax: 513.791.8904 
STEVE VERSSEN, MECHANICAL ENGINEER
Date of Inspection: January 5, 2005
Place: 12830 Cleek Lane
Client: Mike Stutler
CIO Robert Trainor, Esq.
The Carroll House
216 East Fourth Street
Covington,Kentucky 41011 -1759
Present at Inspection: Kathy & David Stutler
Orientation: Faces approximately Southwest
Weather: Rain, 43 degrees F
Vertech was contracted to perform an Infrared Survey and moisture inspection at the above address. On January 5, 2005 with the aid of Safety Tech Inc. the interior living space was surveyed. The following narrative is intended to be comprehensive and complete, but does not represent all items that were detailed, checked, and inspected. The following items are those warranting comment, concern, and/or follow-up.
Client should understand that this should be considered a preliminary survey. Varying weather conditions will drastically impact results of a survey.
The moisture analysis survey of this home was conducted by 2 - level H certified
Thermographers.
The structure is a I brick veneer ranch, built on a cast in place concrete foundation
approximately 3 years old.
INTERIOR INSPECTION:
There was visible evidence of interior moisture leakage.
There is visible evidence of mold growth on several floor and rim joists throughout the basement area.
There is also evidence of a much greater level of mold growth and fungal amplification at the rear siding door as a direct result of continued moisture infiltration.
Client should review the enclosed pictures and captions in detail.
Page 1 of3
Member:
America,;
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) American Society of Home Inspecwrs (ASH!) Cert. #007389
International Code Council (ICC) Certified Inspector Exterior Design Institute (OHIO)
American Indoor Air Quality Council (fAQ)
Certified Microbial Consultant (CMC)

Please be advised that framing lumber, plywood and OSB sheathing typically acclimate around 8-12%. Moisture readings above 19%, the moisture content which lumber is typically kiln dried, indicate a level of moisture intrusion. Moisture levels in excess of 24% are levels where fimgal wood rot is typically activated.
I am also very concerned that the longer these conditions continue the higher potential for fungal amplification and structural deterioration grows.
Additional IR scans may continue to locate moisture pockets and fungal amplification sites.
CLOSE:
The conclusions and recommendations of this report represent my opinion of the existing structure as of this date.
This inspection involved visual techniques only, utilizing nondestructive evaluation and no material testing or design work has been done as part of this report. This report is based on a visual inspection of residence and existing mold conditions and does not include any other systems of the structure. Latent and concealed defects and deficiencies are excluded from this inspection.
Neither this survey nor this report constitute an exhaustive technical evaluation. This report is prepared for the sole, confidential, and exclusive use and possession of the client. Neither the contents of the inspection nor any representation made herein are assignable.
Vertech Inspections, Inc. is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based on the information in this report.
This report is based on apparent conditions existing at the time of the inspection only. The conditions of the property may change due to factors such as water and moisture leaks, actions taken by owner or others, or the passing of the time itself.
The client must accept the responsibility for all risks for items which are not reasonably detectable within the scope of this inspection.
I have made every effort to perform a comprehensive and thorough inspection with recommendations for this property. This inspection and report are not intended to be used as a guarantee or warranty, express or implied, regarding the adequacy, performance or condition of any inspected structure, item, or system. Vertech is not an insurer of the property including, but not limited to any inspected structure, item or system. Vertech hereby disclaims all other warranties, expressed or implied, including warranties of habitability, merchantability and fitness for any particular purposes whatsoever.
Page 2 of 3

If you have any questions regarding this inspection or need further evaluation, please let mc know.
Sincerely,
V eehlnspections,lnc.
Steve Verssen
President
b
Page 3 of 3