- per building code: slope ground away from foundation walls--minimum six inches fall in ten feet.
- impervious (polyethelene) layer.
- stone
location: Strasburg, VA
county: shenandoah
builder: Alan Toothman Construction, Inc., Woodstock, VA.
Friday, August 31, 2018
impervious slope: what we had to do because the builder didn't follow the building code and approved plans and the shenandoah county building inspection dept. was out to lunch
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
how shenandoah co. va. mishandled a clear building code violation
the building code violation:
June 30, 2018
Mr. Griffey,
under section 401.3 of the virginia residential building code (https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/VRC2012/chapter-4-foundations) and paragraph 6 of section 19.2-8 of the code of virginia (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter1/section19.2-8/), I am submitting my formal complaint of violation of the virginia building code. Specifically section 401.3 of the virginia residential building codestates "Surface drainage shall be diverted to a storm sewer conveyance or other approved point of collection that does not create a hazard to the dwelling unit. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) within the first 10 feet (3048 mm)." The grading at our house, located at 148 daniel ct., strasburg, does not slope away from the foundation walls as required. This has resulted in several inches of standing water in our crawl space.
Our certificate of use and occupancy is attached. Please note that our house meets the time requirements set forth in paragraph 6 of section 19.2-8.
Should you reject my formal complaint, then I request a meeting at county offices with you and other county personnel or outside consultants involved in the decision not to issue a notice of violation of the building code to the builder for this violation.
Sincerely,
Ray Koenig
notes:
- Mark Griffey is the building official for Shenandoah County VA . https://shenandoahcountyva.us/building-inspection/
- "Should you reject my formal complaint..." this was inserted because griffey and county attorney jordan bowman with the private law firm of Litton and Sipe, Harrisonburg Va. rejected without a written response my neighbor's valid building code violation complaint.
- the meeting that I requested never happened.
********************************************************
shenandoah county's response:
- "...leakage..." wrong word. the correct word is flooding.
- "...possible violation..." wrong word. the correct word is clear violation.
- see note #2 following "complaint".
2nd paragraph:
notes:
- "...discussed..." wrong word. Mr. Griffey "reached out" (his words) to alan toothman construction, inc., the builder who failed to comply with the building code and the approved grading and drainage plan. One "reaches out" to someone in need, e.g., a hungry or homeless person, a person in danger, a person needing help, a citizen with a valid building code violation complaint, etc.--not a builder who breaks the law by failing to comply with the building code.
- the builder's plan to "fix" the building code violation wouldn't have "fixed" it at all. in fact, it would have made the problem worse. I provided a detailed written explanation of why toothman's "fix" makes the problem worse. the county failed to respond.
- yes, griffey and bowman, I refuse to allow you and toothman to make our problem worse.
- griffey and bowman don't want to hear facts. that's why they didn't grant my request for a meeting.
3rd paragraph:
- see #2 above.
- this is how shenandoah county va. treats one of its citizens victimized by a clear building code violation.
- poor government inspection and enforcement is why there are many bad builders in the USA.
- poor government inspection and enforcement is why quality of home construction in the USA has declined in the past 50 years while quality in all other sectors has increased more than 200%.
By U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
virginia
shenandoah county
strasburg
stony pointe
toothman
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
the death of the catholic church's moral authority
- 70 years
- 300 priests--just in PA
- more than 1,000 victims--just in PA
- multiple bishops covering it up--just in PA
- 7 popes
project the PA abomination worldwide and you have a massive worldwide abomination.
Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies (OFFICIAL TEXT) | News | LifeSite
so much for the moral authority of the pope and the catholic church.
author: "user:Flicka" does not exist
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
shenandoah county virginia's handling of an alan toothman construction, inc. building code violation doesn't pass the smell test
Jun 30, 2018
Mr. Griffey,
under section 401.3 of the virginia residential building code (https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/VRC2012/chapter-4-foundations) and paragraph 6 of section 19.2-8 of the code of virginia (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter1/section19.2-8/), I am submitting my formal complaint of violation of the virginia building code. Specifically section 401.3 of the virginia residential building codestates "Surface drainage shall be diverted to a storm sewer conveyance or other approved point of collection that does not create a hazard to the dwelling unit. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) within the first 10 feet (3048 mm)." The grading at our house, located at 148 daniel ct., strasburg, does not slope away from the foundation walls as required. This has resulted in several inches of standing water in our crawl space.
Our certificate of use & occupancy is attached. Please note that our house meets the time requirements set forth in paragraph 6 of section 19.2-8.
Should you reject my formal complaint, then I request a meeting at county offices with you and other county personnel or outside consultants involved in the decision not to issue a notice of violation of the building code to the builder for this violation. *
Sincerely,
Ray Koenig
* never happened
***************************************************
Comments on Lellock plan (builder alan toothman's engineer)
1. Contrary to what’s stated in “proposed improvement”, there are no physical barriers that prevent grading between 144 and 148 from conforming to the approved 2003 grading plan and R401.3.
2. The Lellock plan does not conform to the letter or the intent of R401.3 of the Virginia Residential Building Code (see note 4 in “project notes”). The purpose of R401.3 is to direct runoff a minimum of 10 ft. away from foundation walls. The Lellock plan does not do this.
3. The Lellock plan does not conform to the approved 2003 grading plan. The 2003 approved grading plan, with ground sloped away from foundation walls for a minimum of 10 ft., conforms to R401.3.
4. The Lellock plan directs runoff to a french drain that is located next to the landscaped area that is approximately half the distance from the foundation wall as R401.3 requires. As conceived, runoff in the french drain will saturate soil around and under it and foundation walls. This violates both the letter and the intent of R401.3.
5. Grading per R401.3 keeps runoff away from foundation walls by diverting it to a surface swale 10 ft. minimum from foundation walls. Runoff in a properly graded swale will intercept surface runoff and will not saturate soils near foundation walls as the Lellock plan will.
6. The Lellock plan does not adequately address runoff from 144’s roof and landscaped area in front of 144. The surface swale shown in the approved 2003 grading plan will intercept runoff from 144’s roof and landscaping bed at the surface, 10 ft. away from 148’s foundation walls. A properly graded swale will keep the runoff 10 ft. away from foundation walls. This will conform to the letter and the intent of R401.3.
7. The contributing drainage area in the Lellock plan doesn’t include 148’s roof.
8. Considering the many instances in this development where buried flexible plastic pipes--with more fall than the 6” buried flexible plastic pipe in the Lellock plan will have--have dips and low spots, it’s inconceivable that the 6” buried flexible plastic pipe in the Lellock plan will have a uniform 1% (1/8” per ft.) grade. With a surface swale, it’s easy to see if it’s properly graded.
9. What’s to prevent critters with nesting material from entering the outlet end of the 6” pipe and creating obstructions? With 90o connections, how will these obstructions be cleared without great difficulty? Obviously, this is not a problem with a surface swale.
10. Will the trench be exposed? We didn't buy a house with a gravel trench running down the side. In fact, if we had seen a gravel trench running down the side yard, then we would have been alerted to the drainage problems here, and we probably wouldn’t have bought the house. Who, given the choice between a gravel trench or grass, would choose a gravel trench?
11. The Lellock plan does not address the front and back of the house. Grading in neither the front nor the rear of the house conforms to the approved 2003 grading and drainage plan and R401.3. Further, judging from the amount of standing water in the front and rear of the crawl space, much of the runoff is coming in through the foundation walls in the front and the rear of the house.
12. I disagree that the Lellock plan has the same drainage pattern as the approved 2003 grading and drainage plan. Obviously, concentrated drainage from a 6” pipe is not the same as drainage spread out in a 20 ft. wide swale. Depending where the outlet end of the 6” pipe is located (the Lellock plan is not specific), drainage intended for the stormwater management pond in the 2003 approved grading and drainage plan may not end up reaching the stormwater management pond with the Lellock plan.
13. The house on 144 and the house on 148 are not parallel. The space between the houses widens from front to rear.
These partial comments address the overall unsuitability of the Lellock plan (comment #4 of “project notes” in the Lellock plan). The Lellock plan does not conform to the approved 2003 grading plans or R401.3 of the Virginia Residential Building Code.
Lot 148 should be regraded to conform to the 2003 approved grading plan and R401.3.
If the Lellock plan is withdrawn, as it should be, and Lot 148 is regraded to conform with the approved 2003 grading plan and R401.3, as it should be, then further comments that I have on the Lellock plan (e.g. soils data, soil borings’ locations, etc.) don’t need to be addressed.
note: the county didn't respond to these comments.
****************************************************
Aug 2, 2018
Dr. Helsley,
My name is Ray Koenig. Last November my wife, Jenny, and I purchased a new home located at 148 Daniel Ct., Strasburg. In April of this year we discovered standing water in our crawl space. On June 30 I emailed my formal complaint of a building code violation to Mark Griffey, Shenandoah County building code official, citing section R401.3 of the virginia residential building code (https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/VRC2012/chapter-4-foundations). Mr. Griffey told me that he was going to cite the builder, Alan Toothman Construction, Inc with a building code violation. He didn't, opting instead to "reach out" (his words) to the builder. The builder's engineer submitted a plan that does not comply with section R401.3 or the 2003 approved grading and drainage plan for the development (Stony Pointe). I submitted my written objections to Toothman's engineer's plan to Mr. Griffey on July 30. I am a retired (before retirement, licensed) civil engineer and land surveyor, born, raised, and educated in Virginia, and spent most of my 40+ year career working for private engineering consulting firms in Virginia.
We will appreciate any advice or assistance that you can provide in helping us to resolve this matter. I will be pleased to provide any information that you request on this matter and/or to meet with you at a time and place of your convenience. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ray & Jenny Koenig
*********************************************
Aug 4, 2018
Mr. Koenig,
I am receipt of your e-mail on August 2. I have contacted County Administration and you should receive a letter from the County Attorney next week concerning your problem with drainage.
Conrad A. Helsley, Chairman
District 6 Supervisor
note: "so goes the head, so goes the snake."
citizens of shenandoah county, decapitate the snake in the next local election.
*********************************************
what's so hard to get?--it's not rocket science.
other questions:
but, the real question is: why does shenandoah county "reach out" to law-breaking builder alan toothman construction inc. who violated the building code, i.e., broke the law, instead of supporting its own law-abiding citizens?
it doesn't "pass the smell test".
virginia
shenandoah county
helsley
strasburg
stony pointe
toothman
Mr. Griffey,
under section 401.3 of the virginia residential building code (https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/VRC2012/chapter-4-foundations) and paragraph 6 of section 19.2-8 of the code of virginia (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter1/section19.2-8/), I am submitting my formal complaint of violation of the virginia building code. Specifically section 401.3 of the virginia residential building codestates "Surface drainage shall be diverted to a storm sewer conveyance or other approved point of collection that does not create a hazard to the dwelling unit. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches (152 mm) within the first 10 feet (3048 mm)." The grading at our house, located at 148 daniel ct., strasburg, does not slope away from the foundation walls as required. This has resulted in several inches of standing water in our crawl space.
Our certificate of use & occupancy is attached. Please note that our house meets the time requirements set forth in paragraph 6 of section 19.2-8.
Should you reject my formal complaint, then I request a meeting at county offices with you and other county personnel or outside consultants involved in the decision not to issue a notice of violation of the building code to the builder for this violation. *
Sincerely,
Ray Koenig
* never happened
***************************************************
Jul 30, 2018
Comments on Lellock plan (builder alan toothman's engineer)
1. Contrary to what’s stated in “proposed improvement”, there are no physical barriers that prevent grading between 144 and 148 from conforming to the approved 2003 grading plan and R401.3.
2. The Lellock plan does not conform to the letter or the intent of R401.3 of the Virginia Residential Building Code (see note 4 in “project notes”). The purpose of R401.3 is to direct runoff a minimum of 10 ft. away from foundation walls. The Lellock plan does not do this.
3. The Lellock plan does not conform to the approved 2003 grading plan. The 2003 approved grading plan, with ground sloped away from foundation walls for a minimum of 10 ft., conforms to R401.3.
4. The Lellock plan directs runoff to a french drain that is located next to the landscaped area that is approximately half the distance from the foundation wall as R401.3 requires. As conceived, runoff in the french drain will saturate soil around and under it and foundation walls. This violates both the letter and the intent of R401.3.
5. Grading per R401.3 keeps runoff away from foundation walls by diverting it to a surface swale 10 ft. minimum from foundation walls. Runoff in a properly graded swale will intercept surface runoff and will not saturate soils near foundation walls as the Lellock plan will.
6. The Lellock plan does not adequately address runoff from 144’s roof and landscaped area in front of 144. The surface swale shown in the approved 2003 grading plan will intercept runoff from 144’s roof and landscaping bed at the surface, 10 ft. away from 148’s foundation walls. A properly graded swale will keep the runoff 10 ft. away from foundation walls. This will conform to the letter and the intent of R401.3.
7. The contributing drainage area in the Lellock plan doesn’t include 148’s roof.
8. Considering the many instances in this development where buried flexible plastic pipes--with more fall than the 6” buried flexible plastic pipe in the Lellock plan will have--have dips and low spots, it’s inconceivable that the 6” buried flexible plastic pipe in the Lellock plan will have a uniform 1% (1/8” per ft.) grade. With a surface swale, it’s easy to see if it’s properly graded.
9. What’s to prevent critters with nesting material from entering the outlet end of the 6” pipe and creating obstructions? With 90o connections, how will these obstructions be cleared without great difficulty? Obviously, this is not a problem with a surface swale.
10. Will the trench be exposed? We didn't buy a house with a gravel trench running down the side. In fact, if we had seen a gravel trench running down the side yard, then we would have been alerted to the drainage problems here, and we probably wouldn’t have bought the house. Who, given the choice between a gravel trench or grass, would choose a gravel trench?
11. The Lellock plan does not address the front and back of the house. Grading in neither the front nor the rear of the house conforms to the approved 2003 grading and drainage plan and R401.3. Further, judging from the amount of standing water in the front and rear of the crawl space, much of the runoff is coming in through the foundation walls in the front and the rear of the house.
12. I disagree that the Lellock plan has the same drainage pattern as the approved 2003 grading and drainage plan. Obviously, concentrated drainage from a 6” pipe is not the same as drainage spread out in a 20 ft. wide swale. Depending where the outlet end of the 6” pipe is located (the Lellock plan is not specific), drainage intended for the stormwater management pond in the 2003 approved grading and drainage plan may not end up reaching the stormwater management pond with the Lellock plan.
13. The house on 144 and the house on 148 are not parallel. The space between the houses widens from front to rear.
These partial comments address the overall unsuitability of the Lellock plan (comment #4 of “project notes” in the Lellock plan). The Lellock plan does not conform to the approved 2003 grading plans or R401.3 of the Virginia Residential Building Code.
Lot 148 should be regraded to conform to the 2003 approved grading plan and R401.3.
If the Lellock plan is withdrawn, as it should be, and Lot 148 is regraded to conform with the approved 2003 grading plan and R401.3, as it should be, then further comments that I have on the Lellock plan (e.g. soils data, soil borings’ locations, etc.) don’t need to be addressed.
note: the county didn't respond to these comments.
****************************************************
Aug 2, 2018
Dr. Helsley,
My name is Ray Koenig. Last November my wife, Jenny, and I purchased a new home located at 148 Daniel Ct., Strasburg. In April of this year we discovered standing water in our crawl space. On June 30 I emailed my formal complaint of a building code violation to Mark Griffey, Shenandoah County building code official, citing section R401.3 of the virginia residential building code (https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/VRC2012/chapter-4-foundations). Mr. Griffey told me that he was going to cite the builder, Alan Toothman Construction, Inc with a building code violation. He didn't, opting instead to "reach out" (his words) to the builder. The builder's engineer submitted a plan that does not comply with section R401.3 or the 2003 approved grading and drainage plan for the development (Stony Pointe). I submitted my written objections to Toothman's engineer's plan to Mr. Griffey on July 30. I am a retired (before retirement, licensed) civil engineer and land surveyor, born, raised, and educated in Virginia, and spent most of my 40+ year career working for private engineering consulting firms in Virginia.
We will appreciate any advice or assistance that you can provide in helping us to resolve this matter. I will be pleased to provide any information that you request on this matter and/or to meet with you at a time and place of your convenience. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ray & Jenny Koenig
*********************************************
Aug 4, 2018
Mr. Koenig,
I am receipt of your e-mail on August 2. I have contacted County Administration and you should receive a letter from the County Attorney next week concerning your problem with drainage.
Conrad A. Helsley, Chairman
District 6 Supervisor
note: "so goes the head, so goes the snake."
citizens of shenandoah county, decapitate the snake in the next local election.
*********************************************
*********************************************
At grade, the main object is to get water away from the foundation as quickly as possible. Finish grade should slope away from the building for at least 10 to 15 feet, and should not contain low spots that will make water ponds.
Swales: if one or more sides of the building face an upwards sloping hill, slope the finish grade away from the building for at least 10-15 feet, and then shape the finish grade at that point into a swale that itself continues to carry water around to the downhill side of the building.
A swale, illustrated by Carson Dunlop Associates' sketch at left, is a nice word for a "gentle ditch" - it does not have to be deep.
A swale, illustrated by Carson Dunlop Associates' sketch at left, is a nice word for a "gentle ditch" - it does not have to be deep.
Foundation ditches: Do not do what we have found at some flooding basements: an in-slope grade problem that was trapping surface and roof runoff against the house was "fixed" by digging a ditch right against the foundation wall in an attempt to carry water away. The ditch digger simply had built a water trap to guarantee that water would be sent against the foundation wall.
*****************************************
- the building code gets it--section 401.3. https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/VRC2012/chapter-4-foundations
- the 2003 approved grading plan gets it.
- the builder, alan toothman construction, doesn't get it.
- the builder's engineer doesn't get it.
- the shenandoah county building official doesn't get it.
- the shenandoah county attorney doesn't get it.
- the district 6 representative and chairman of the shenandoah county board of supervisors doesn't get it.
- the shenandoah county administrator doesn't get it.
- the assistant shenandoah county administrator doesn't get it.
what's so hard to get?--it's not rocket science.
other questions:
- does toothman, griffey, bowman, helsley, lellock, smith, price, or vass have several inches of standing water in their basements or crawl spaces because the builder of their house didn't follow the approved grading plan or the state building code?
- does toothman, griffey, bowman, helsley, lellock, smith, price, or vass have a 75 ft. long exposed gravel trench in their yards? that wasn't there when they bought their house? that was being shoved down their throats by their county government?
- how would griffey, bowman, helsley, lellock, smith, price, vass, or any other citizen of shenandoah county, virginia, or any other local government feel if they received the same treatment from their local government that we got?
but, the real question is: why does shenandoah county "reach out" to law-breaking builder alan toothman construction inc. who violated the building code, i.e., broke the law, instead of supporting its own law-abiding citizens?
it doesn't "pass the smell test".
virginia
shenandoah county
helsley
strasburg
stony pointe
toothman
Monday, August 6, 2018
why doesn't congress/mueller investigate facebook/zuckerberg?
OK.
we get it.
trump, trump jr., russians, collusion, election, hillary, etc.
Cartoon Free America
why doesn't congress/mueller investigate something/someone that should be investigated--like facebook/zuckerberg?
Facebook to Banks: Give Us Your Data, We’ll Give You Our Users - WSJ
we get it.
trump, trump jr., russians, collusion, election, hillary, etc.
Cartoon Free America
why doesn't congress/mueller investigate something/someone that should be investigated--like facebook/zuckerberg?
Facebook to Banks: Give Us Your Data, We’ll Give You Our Users - WSJ
image by Anthony Quintano
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)