The URL can be used to link to this page

16460 SW HOOPS COURT a� .P 0 O O v n O t 16460 SW HOOPS COURT CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING INSPEC1 ,40N DIVISION / 61 ) � 24-Hour Inspe,:tion Line: 639-417S Business Line: 639-4171 MST --- - -`- - '01 rillp _Date Requested / ---_—_- PM BLD I_ cation -- -- -- ---- -••�-- Suite MEC, Contact Perso i ph _— -- FILM - -- ------ Contractor ,/,/ SWR - ----- ---- D Tenant/Owner Y FLC rRetainrng Wall - --- - — Footing EI-k FoundationAccess' -------Access- FlyDrainDrain 1=F=C -- ----_ Crawl Drain InspectioI Notes: - — -/"�--- SG;! Slab -- .c�2� � �e, -- l✓ - --_ Post& Beam -� SIT _ Ext She th/Shear L, Int ShQath/Sher Framing Insulation _ --- -_- —-- _ — --- - Drywall Nailing Firewall ----- -- -- ---- -- ---- - - -------- Fire Sprinkler __--- Fire Alarm - --- — - _ Susp'd Ceiling Roo! - -- — --- -- Misc,_ - -- -. rn —..__ -- --- —_- _- ----- PASS - ART FAIL - j PLUMBING -- Post&Beam - - -_ -- Under Slab -- Top Out - -- _�— -- -- --- Water Service Sanitary Sewer Rain Drains Final - -------- --- PASS PART FAIL MECHANICAL -- ----- Post& Bearn Rough In -- - ---- --- Gas Line Smoke Dampers Final - PASS PART FAIL ELECTRICAL _ Service ----- P.ongh In I Ju/Slab Low Voltage Fire Alarm Final --_ _— ----------- PASS RT FAIL -------------------------SITE ---- - Backfill/Grading --- -- ----_ ___-----_,----- Sanitary Sewer — - - -- -- Sto CatchBasDrain I Reinspection fee of$_ _--required tefore next inspection. Pay at City Hall, 13125,3V/Hall Blvd Catch Basin Fire Supply Line I I Please call for reinspection RF ADS ------- --. -_ [ [Unable to inspect-no access Approach/Sidewalk Other date Q --� _- - .U-_ inspector. r�inal ---— .L� PASS PART FAIL J 00 NOT REMOVE this inspection record from tite 'oh site, r Code Enforcement Case # Received by, Date: d Time: RECEIVED FROM: �� CITY OF TIG�� OREGON / PRnPERTY OWNER: (site address) — PARCEL #: 510! Cg -1443ov — Map Page.- Tax age:Tax Lot (s):_, —_-- - DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION: L0&//) -��r11� �S) ir►---- ` DATE OF VIOLATION: 10-17-19 _- TIME OF VIOLATION: :) V (&�S The following information to bg completed by Code Compl_iroce Officer/Community Development Type of Violation: u - !� Class of Violation:-- - Compliance Deadline Date:!/' Jf�-�I Penalty ($/da,,): ComplianuP D:�adline Time: Misc. Fees: Code Citation: Reviewed by: , — Final Disposition Date: - - Municipal Date: � - CUc --� ._..................1st Inspection,..._.._..............................__._.._................._._1st Lettpr.............w...._......................�.............�........._.............._. ..� - --- 2nd inspection: 2nd Letter: ..............................................................................................................................._._................................................................................................................... IAOMCOMPLANT DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD (.503)684-2772 BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD S'L'ATE OF OREGON Kenneth K. Keudell, Administrator In the Matter of'the Claim of: Claim No: 49601-107 DOUG and LAKY LEGRADY, Claimant vs. MELODY WOODS HOME CORP., PROPOSED AND )hINAI, ORDER Respondent Claudia M. Burton, Administrative Law Judge(ALJ) appointed by the Construction Contractors Board(CCB), heard this proceeding on August 18, 1998, in Salem, Oregon. The claimants appeared pro se. The respondent appeared through its president, Tom Carey, and was represented by its attorney, Michael Sahagian. The record closed on August 18, 1998. On November 3, 1997, the claimants timely filed this claim pursuant to ORS 701.145, seeking a total of $6,730.00 in monetary damages. The respondent was registered at the time the work was performed. The CCB investigated the matter and, as required by ORS 701.145, served a Notice of Hearing on the parties by certified mail at their last known address as defined at ORS 701.080. To determine the validity of the claim and whether the amount the claimant, seek is proper, the ALJ prepared and considered the record of this proceeding which consists of a tape recording of the hearing, all evidence received and all hearing papers filed by the parties. The findings of fact are based on the entire record. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In April of 1996, the parties entered into a contract whereby respondent agreed to build a home for claimants on property located at 16460 SW Hoops Ct., Tigard, Oregon. The house was completed and claimants moved in in November of 1996. 2. In January of 1997, claimants filed claim number 49601-106 (hereinafter, "claim 106") against respondent, related to the home at Hoops Ct. Claim item number 3 of that claim stated: "crawl space flooded for months prior to occupancy -- only builder knew. Improper grading & inspection. Water flow toward house." (Exhibit 35). 3. On May 28. 1997, the parties entered into a settlement agreement of claim number 106. Under the terms of the agreement, claim items 1-8 and others were to be resolved by the contractor's payment of$3,600.00. The agreement stated, "Upon full payment, this fully relieves each party of any and all claims in relation to these matters." (Exhibit 36). LeGrady v. Melody Woods Nome Corp., Claim No. 49601-107, page 1 of 5 Respondent paid the $3,600.00. 5. On November 3, 1997, claimants filed this claim. Claim item number 1 of this Jaim stater: "Low point drain not removing H2O and may be allowing H2O to enter crawl space du io it being same level as exit @ curb, adjacer.t to storm drain. It's at a reverse grade." Claim item number 8 of this claim states: "low point drain @ back should have been connected to the storm sewer line in my backyard -- not to be exiting onto someone's land with no pennission." Claim item number 9 of this claim states, "an electric wire in crawl space, not noticed before, runs across the ground below vapor barrier is not nailed to code." (Exhibits 1, 2). o. On December 1, 1997, Darrell Watkins, Inspection Supervisor for the city of Tigard, followilrg an inspection ;performed on October 27, 1997 (Fxhibits C58-C61), wrote to respondent outlining alleged rode violations in claim,urts' home. The relevant alleged code violations were as follows: "1.) The low point (crawispace) drain does not function on the street side c,f the house. Suspect lack of slope between inlet and outlet of the drain is not sufficient for (low. The crawispace is too flat for the water to run to the drain that was placed in the back of the house. (which seems to function) 2.) Some foundation vents are allowing some surface water flow into the crawlspace, 'nsufficient slope at grade away from house, no protective wells around the vents that are at or below grade. 3.) Vere is a live 120 volt wire on the ground in the crawispace that was riot properly terminated in a junction box. Another 240 volt wire is on the ground." (Exhibit 26). 7. On January 21, 1998, the parties met with a CCB Investigator/Mediator. At that time, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which provided that items 1, 8, and 9 of the claim would be resolved as follows: "the respondent will resolve the issues of violations that have been raised in the investigation report done by the City of Tigard. Inspection Supervisor Darrell Watkins, regarding these items. Report items #1, 2 and 3." The agreement further provided that other claim items would be satisfied by payment of$450.00. The agreement also specified that "this is a substituted contract and any monetary damages sought due to a breach of contract, through no fault of claimant, will be based only on this agreement." (Exhibit 20). At the time the parties entered into the onsite settlement agreement, they had and referred to the December 1, 1997 letter from Mr. Watkins quoted above. Claimants understood that if the settlement agreement was breached, any damages would be based on the settlement agreement and not on their original ,Iaim. (Testimony of Mr. LeGrady). 8. Respondent properly corrected the problem with the live wires in the crawl space. (Exhibit 34, testimony of Mr. Watkins). 9. The city conducted a further inspection on February 6, 1998. (Exhibit 28). In ,ddition, the city conducted further research on the code violations listed in the December 1, 1997 letter. After conducting research, the city determined that item 2 in its December 1, 1997 letter was not the letter was mistakenly dated 1977 LeGrady v Melody Woods Horne Corp., Claim No. 4.9601-10 7, page 2 of 5 properly attributable to respondent. The city's research disclosed that Washington County had specifically required, inspected for, and found, proper grading away from the house. Therefore, the city concluded that any problems with the grade away from the house were attributable to landscaping or other actions by claimants, not to respondent. Therefore, the city did not require any further corrections to this item. The city found that item 1 was still open. The backwater valve at the rear crawl space was not accessible for repair. Also, the city found that the contractor still needed to prudent water intrusion into the crawlspace through the front vents and prevent excessive pooling of water at the backwater valve/drain. The city further found that claimants needed to lower the grade in the crawlspace (because the existing grade in the crawlspace was a result of claimants'moving earth) and that claimants needed to prevent water intrusion through the foundation vents (because claimants presumably i]ad altered the grade). (Exhibit 34, testimony of Mr. Watkins). Because of the unresolved issues with regard to item 1, the city still has not granted final approval to claimants' home. (Exhibit 28, testimony of Mr. Watkins). 10. The backwater valve can be made accessible for repair at a cost of$45.00, including labor and materials. (Testimony of Robert Strauss). 11. The recommended correction for water intrusion into the crawlspace from the front drain and excessive pooling of water at the backwater valve/drain is to seal the drain at the crawlspace. (Exhibit 34, testimony of Mr. Watkins and Mr. Strauss). This can be accomplished, including labor and materials, for approximately$200.00. (Testimony of Mr. Strauss). CONCLUSIONS OF LAZA/ AND OPINION In considering claimants' claims, the first thing that must be determined is the effect of the settlement agreement dated January 21, 1998. The szttlement agreement expressly stated that it was a substituted contract. "In the case of an accord and satisfaction, or substituted contract, the original obligation is totally extinguished and the creditor's only rights and remedies are those available under the new agreement. *** [W]hether a particular settlement or compromise agreement is an accord and satisfaction *** is a question of intent ***." Savelich Logging Cr. v. Preston Mill Co., 265 Or 456, 461,462 (1973). Here, not only did the settlement agreement expressly state that it was a substituted contract,but the claimants understood at the time the parties entered into the settlement agreement that any further claims would be based solely on the settlement agreement. Therefore, claimants' rights in this matter and the scope of claimants' claim Are defined solely by the settlement agreer,,ent of January 21, 1998. That agreement required respondent to resolve issues 1-3 as set forth in Mr. NVokins' December 1, 1997 letter. The first item in that letter was the functioning of the low point crawlspace drain. This matter remains unresolved, with the city still requiring further corrections on this issue. Therefore, respondent breached the parties' settlement agreement by failing to resolve issue number 1 of Mr. Watkins' December 1, 1997 letter. Respondent argued that it should not have been required to comply with this provision of the settlement agreement, because the claim items involved were previously settled in claim (number 106. Mr. Carey testified that the GCB investigator told him to go ahead and sign the settlement agreement, and if any claim items had been resolved in the previous claim, those claim LeGrady v. Afelodv Woods Home Corp., Claim No. 49601-107,page 3 of 5 items would be dismissed.' Assuming this to be true, I nevertheless find that this does not involve the claim item which was previously resoly ,' in claim number 106. That claim item (Exhibit 35) addressed flooding of the crawl space prior t .ccupancy, whereas this claim involves continued entrance of water to the crawl space after occupancy. Claim 106 alleges water flow towards the house due to improper grading and inspection. Item I of Mr. Watkins' letter addresses the flow of water through the crawl space, not toward the house. The language of the settlement agreement in claim number 106 does not suggest a global release but rather discharge of liability for "these matters." Thereforc, I find that respondent's agreement to resolve issue number 1 in Mr. Watkins' December 1, 1997 letter was not affected by the prior settlement of claim number 106. Claimants submitted two estimates for proposed corrections. The first involved installing perforated pipe covered with drain rock around the inside perimeter of the foundation. The second involved a French drain encompassing the entire crawl space. Both proposals also included tying the foundation drain to the storm sewer system. (Exhibits 30, C53). While I have no doubt that one of these proposals would be the best and most effective, solution to the problem, both proposals far exceed what is required by the city. The settlement agreement only requires respondent to resolve the issues of code violations enumerated by the city. The agreement does not require respondent to go beyond what'the city requires and provide the best possible solution. The evidence demonstrated that the city only requires that respondent make the valve accessible, seal of front drain, and prevent excessive pooling of water at the backwater valve/drain. Nowhere was there any indication that the city would require a French drain or perforated drain pipe around the inside perimeter of the foundation. Respondent offered evidence that the corrections required by the city can be accomplished at a cost of 5245.00. Claimants did not provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, claimants are entitled to art award of$245.00 for this claim item. The city considers item 2 (foundation vents ailow:ng surface water into the crawlspace, insufficient slope at grade away from house) resolved. After research, the city discovered that the county had required, and verified by inspection, adequate slope away from the house before claimants took possession. Therefore, the city believes that any problems in slope away from the house result from landscaping or other activities by claimants. The city is not requiring any corrections from the contractor on this item. Because the settlement agreement required respondent to resolve the listed items to the satisfactic,n of the city, and respondent has done so with regard to this item, claimants are not entitled to any damages for this item. Respondent diJ fix the problem of the live wires in the crawl space to the satisfaction of the city. Claimants complain that their icing is not to code and that they did not receive what they had contracted for in terms of electrical service. Nevertheless, thr settlement agreement only required respondent to resolve the one electrical issue specified in Mr. Watkins' December 1, 1997 letter. Respondent has done so. Therefore, claimants are not entitled to any damages for this claim item. z Claimants did not recall hearing any such discussion, and the claims examiner did not testify. However, if the: claims examiner did give this advice, it was erroneous. Respondent should not have been encouraged to sign a settlement agreement to perform corrections for any work which had been previously resolved. LeGrady v. Melody Woods Home Corp., Claine No 49601-/07,page 4 of 5 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Respondent shall pay claimants $245.00. Dated this da August. 1998 y of r� Claudia M. Burton, Administrative Law Judge NOTICE OF REVIEW AND APPEAL RIGITFS As provided in ORS 183.460, any party that disagrees with this Proposed and Final Order may file written exceptions, lm�luding argument. If you choose to file exceptions, carefully follow the instructions enclosed with this order. Mail your exceptions to the Construction Contractors Board (CCB) at the address provided below CCB must receive written exceptions on or before the. 2151 day after this order was mailed to the parties at their last known address of record. ORS 701.080. lj'CCB does riot receive your written exceptions on or before the 21" day after this order was so mailed,your exceptions will not he considered. If exceptions are timer received, CCB will send the opposing party a copy of the written exceptions. At the same time, CCB will send both parties information and guidelines f�-r participating in the exceptions process. Thereafter, the Construction Contractors Board's Appeal Committee (Appeal Committee) will consider the exceptions at an Appeal Committee meeting. This will not be a new hearing. The Appeal Committee will only review the original hearing record and this order. The Appeal Committee will not consider evidence that was not a part of the original hearing record. If CCB does not time!},receive exception- this order will automatically become final. OAR 812- 004-0035(18). If this order becomes final, you are entitled to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482. Within 60 days from the date that this order becomes final, you may request judicial review by filing a Petition for Judicial Review with the Court of Appeals. Mail any exceptions or a copy of any petition for judicial review to: Construction Contractors Board Hearings Section 700 Summer Street NE Suite 300 PO Box 14140 Salem, OR 97309-5052 LeGrady v. Mclod, Moods Home (-.'orp., Claim No. 49601-107, page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING On this date August 21, 1998, I mailed a copy of a Proposed and Final Older for Claim No. 49601-107 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL 49601-107 DOUG & LANY LEGRADY 16460 SW HOOPS COURT TIGARD OR 97223 49601-107 MELODY WOODS HOME CORP 6607 SW GILLENWATER PL BEAVERTON OR 97007 MICHAEL SAHAGIAN ATTY AT LAW 3895 SW 185TH AVE ALOHA OR 97006 - r' 1z ILC 2?�' fes►'` Hearings Section, Construction Contractors Hoard Einuii cc: DALE MORGAN, INVESTIGATOR MARKEL 96026642 DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE &TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION #350.12 155 NOFTH FIRST, HILLSBORO, OR 97124 COUNTY, PHONE:502/640-3470 OREGON INSPEC-f1ON RE.QUESTS (24 hours): 503/681-3699 or 681-3E Per-rnit # . 05080988 Pr ,sect # F :1159126 Status APPROVE1 ''A-;G 1 Appli4d Issued --!U3; : 5196 Ex_-ires . 12/3Q/ 1996 i/20/96 06 . 00 Composite Type , COMBOS Construction Typ<- Nf.,J Permit Title : SFR - 4 BD 3 BA ATT GAR Description : K E R R 0 N I S C'RE,�T 3 LCAT 45 Bayur, X5/ 17/1996 Addreca 16460 SW HOOD'S CT TI Location Location Detail : Rection Owner Name ! P C DEVELOPMENT INC Phone : - Applicant Name : MELODY WOODS HOMES Phone 649-5700 Contractor : MELODY WOODS HOMES Ck)RP Phone : 649-5700 Parcel : 291 OSCE 16300 ��jj� ~` Approval# : APPR Valuation: Apprc,ved4j �,,.- Inspecor Comments : Reje,cte,3 r` l^1d1 �f/ru�rrC' IVR--RE ULTS - - - REQUEST ERROR! 1 .G : . inspected bY: _ �j� Da e Items requested tol.35e Inspected-------------- 16�1'. -- .�------ -----�_�------- Item# I-ng pt)(ection D �cription ksquesto 00299 P;� Final Plumbing AP DN IV Comments :Requethru IVR -r--- ------------------------------- , 10499 F'ina]. Electra cal AF' DN IVR i la/15/9F,. Inspect HS Action' N IVRS - Inspection 10106 :5— Fav< a# a. AP DN IVR * ;; ,.07/1'0/96 InsLactor: RB Action-` PPR APPROVED .,'07,'09/96 Inspector : RB Action: ri IVRS - Inspection 1420C Plumbing poet & 13eRm ; AP UN IVR ' , . PPP . •A1�j r ' .' ,� 4' R �' t p1��1.5�f✓. .A..+.... .,...it.rlKi•. lt' u}ad ...a►_�..74:1.n• ., ...r.. ....n,-..•..a.w.r..._.J... . CONSTRUCT,ON CONTRACTORS BOARD INVESTIGATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDAT IONS Claim Number Date of Investigation Location z Claimant LC, Q R.A-D 4- Contractor Y Persons Present Paye _ of cm hem Number— Report a 1d Recommendation Cost _ _ Estimate nlvm ccr `In C�1`n - Nn POR/RC7,/i!3T/ ---- E� Claim items listed in the Statement of Claim have been resolved or are outside the scope of the Construction Contractors Board. SE"TTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONTRACTOR: [� rLAIMANT: Ipg,,,eotoein work by _$A and complete the work by I egrae to c omply with, and permit the contractor to comply with, the to comply with the recommendations contained in this recommendations contained in this report as settlement of this claim. I rerstandthat I de not have to accept these understand that I do not have to accept these re^ommandationc or recommendations or sign this s9ttlement agreement I understand that, sign this settlement agreement. I understand that, if I chnose to sign if I choose to sign this agreement, I will be bound by it. this agreement, I will be bo nd by it. Mt G>r!c*L1y 4/C7tdJ1 //L�ti.v,' tt,�',/� C"cif Date Contractor / D Claiman Date westigator,M ato C 915 070.32 IA. 71951 r . ....r r��..-_r r-h.. . ... ..... ro . , ... . �� ....,. �..,.rn ,.. �..\ -,) ri1 h:.1...=1�.�• • '.r'.' ., rrs,y�,(y.R:w.�.11r11+ww�aw��Rl.Ply!! Construction Contractors Board FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PO Box 14140 CLAIM NUMBER: Salem, OR 97309-5052 STATEMENT OF CLAIM s. Person Making Complai it: _ 2. ComplaintAgainit: Name �N �V6 Namc �ln CCB M Company(if registered contractor) CCB 0Cormany Mailing ddmss Mailing Address SCJ _ C' u _ CilI, ^ Zips Ho a Phone City ,Zip ne(s fflh�TT !�' Sm -3 2 3 _Y 700 3. Natnre of Cotnplaiot: (,yy 4. COUWSct: ❑Oral(Submit checks,invoices,ere.,to verify conoicaial r Claim b Owner Written(Co) Y Writtrn(Copy must be attached) Claim by Owm,--f'omuuction Lien Filed tract pate Total Amount ofContrAmount mount Paid taDate ❑ Claim by Gcnc*atl Contractor against Sub. - s - � S rjyL_�p $ �` t(S [J Claim by Subeontractnr against General Job AddressRa��idwtitl ❑ Claim by Frnployce Street 16VI60 50 _ ❑ C•am erciaUGidustnal NOTE. If claim by material or equipment supplier,use Form city Stats Zip No.915-070-Sb. T�� _ D 2 y 9X 2.3 What job was to be doo'under the contact(i.e.,build house,etc.)) r -S +' "&! FOR OFFICE USE ONLY D-Je'Nork sward Dau Contractor Ce•--a work ' , Itegistruion Dates: Regis.Type: 11 you are unable to sotde this matin with the Occupancy Date — Claim Type: comracwr,do you believe t"reasonable cost Beg1F ad Daus of Bond Period of repair will exceed S1,000?tEd Yes ONO Bonding Company Bond Nc,. Bond Amount S. ❑ Check this box if other claim(s)have been filed affecting thht _ property (Claim 90-Day Period ❑ Check this box if this issu:has been submittrd to a oast or arbitration for determination or resolution,and attach details. No. �6. Briefly List Items of Complaint BY NUMBER: P2(2-LEEEK) Q Jrr7 Gcr" i4-q MC-17CAS rad 2_ I dc,�-ro,�% ;; _ ��-. ,- = s • •� r`/i>5��9P,E lCli LLQ' � 9(t ED ;A1176 90,64E rY wcr s J 3' sMCE fZo04t) Ty � r� _�YCY' OtiiVo� AIX 04 fs fes( As MIlly The foregoing is true,complete,and correct to the uev of my knowledge and belief. t(Attach additional sheers ofpaper ijneressary) 6! �XC1�SS t!brf�C2 �4T T�'�/1ANlf�a Xn� k�i'ICYJ64. D!F /S ��°a cY �.t�.9vs��W af'. ,� RETURN .,C 1 TO 'ONS UC ON CONTRACTORS BOARD 911Srlrname rpt ry t r/Od1 COPY of written contract mast ttae — rnhlerot Irrtn,►I rr"NTRACTORS Dale _ AND RECOMMENDATIONS Claim NumberDate of Im. Claimant 00 r }C� ,ntrac.tor n Persons Present [)6(-)c 1�Ar NY LECTK(AG� , Tom 04P y Page of _ Claim It Report and Recommendation r Cost Number Estimate Ll U�lj BRA, E A O-A P Rty ()F AtG) �f-M C1,-21J s em_ '1 b��•� 7`'" , �`�/',� __ r.laun iters: _ _ listed in the Statement of Claim have been resolved or are outside the scope of the C6nstruction Contractors Board. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONTRACTOR. CLAIMANT• I Aqrpe to begin work by _.L_1.L' 1 e and complete the work by 1 agree to comply with, and permit the contractor to comply with, the to comply with the recommendations contained it, this recommendations contained in this report as settlement of this claim. 1 re ort. understand that I do not have to accept these understand that I do not have to accept these recommendations or recommendations or sign this settlement agreement. I understand that, sign this settlement ar, eement. I understand that. it I choose to sign if I chnose to sign this agreement. I pill be bound by it this agreement. I will be bound by it. /t-/1 e D;t� lc�r•�1Jj /{1'r't�! ccwn j l -ZX, �1-,ti� _ _G - � MED _ Dale Contractor to _ -, --7 Aate ("larm imp �torim t tnr r 915 070 32 .A?v 71951 • n'; (",'F 1_�F45 "M AnT April 20, 1998 FILE C PY Doug & Lany Legrady 16460 SW Hoops Cl, Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Complaint at 16460 SW Hoops Ct. (CEO97-0014) Desr Mr. & Mrs. Legrady, Your initial complaint dated 10-17-97 was to address a non-functioning low point drain in your crawlspace. Our first inspection revealed four items that had to be corrected by your contractor, you, or by further investigation at the residence. These were 1) Non-functioning crawlspace drain at front of house, 2) Grading at rear of home too flat and absence of wells around vents, 3) Live electrical wiring on the ground in crawlspace, and 4)Absence of vapor barrier under the flooring. Item #1 has been addressed by the contractor's putting a secondary crawlspace drain at the rear of the hr-rse and Mr. Legrady has been channeling the water in the crawlspace to that point. This is what the contractor would have been required to do, had not Mr. Legrady dune it to drain the water out of the crawlspace. The inspector noted on his second visit that the backwater valve at the rear dra'n was u,der the footing and shGold be moved so it can be repaired. The Inspector also re(Idested that the soil piled to within less that 18 inches of the floor joists be flattened and that the vapor barrier on the t7round be restretched for proper cov3rage. The soil is still wet and the vapor barrier is essential to prevent darnage to the floor system. Hopefully the soil will drain and dry furihe;this summer. The front crawlspace drain has been reported by you to be lower than is discharge point. Tile inspector did not witness flow of water into the crawlspace on his visits to the home. If, in fact, �.he front drain has negative flow, please contact your contractor to address the problem by sealing the drain at both the curb and the crawlspace. Please let us know if this occurs. Item #2 has been discarded as a complaint, given the records obtained from the Washington County Building Department. At tinal inspection, a co;rection was written regarding the final grading and later arproved. Our Inspector advised you on his first visit that protective welts would help io pre)ent water;ntrusion at the foundation vents. Item #3 has been addressed uv the contractor and is no longer ar. issue. Item #4 was further Investigated by Mr. Legrady at our suggestion and he found that there was a vapor barrier between the sub-floor and the flooring. The or tstandrirg items to be dealt with are. Make the backwater valve at the rear crawlspace drain accessible for repair(contractor), lower the grade in the crawrjpace to 18 inches or more from the floor joists(owner), prevent water intrusion into the crawlspace through th front drain (contractor) and foundation vents (owner), and prevent excessive pooling of water at the backwater valve/drain (conrra^tor). If you have questions or need assistance with this file, please call me at 639-4171. Sincerely, Darrel "Hap" Watkins InspectOn Supervisor cc: Melody Woods Hones via Michael S",agian FAX 591-7122. MICHAFL R. SAIIAGM ATTOPNEV AT LAW 3895 S.W. 195TH AVENUE. :.UITE 120 ALOHA.OREGON 97007 FAX '503)591-7122 (503)642-5935 April 13 , 1998 Darrel Watkins Inspection Supervisor 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Investigation of 16140 S.W. Hoops Ct. My client: Melody Words Homes Dear Mr. Watkins: I have received no Wrjtterl reply to my February 10, air d February 24, 1998 letters to you (copies enclosed) . ks a result, the C.C.B. has issued a $6,080.00 order against my client. A letter from Vou verifying that Melody Woods Homes Corp. hasesolved a issues��volat�ons" raised in your investigation may avoid the need to have you testify at our hearing. Please help resolve a matter that has gone on too long. Very truly yours, Michael R. Satogian Attar. iey at Law MRS/ds Enclosures cc: Tom Carey Mar- 04-98 10 : 54A WESTERN WIRE 503 222 6843 P _01 Post-it`Fax Note 7671 DAIP r_ "O�► .7 ,a'' payee r f CAG-lu(,' _ Go./Dopi ��r �F Ti". cu Phone F Phone a CITY OF ficARD FA"" Foxe BUILDING INSPECTION — "– AT% HW WATKINS DEAR Mk WAIKINS: ��✓ '7/ THIS I '7U kLCAP UUk LUNVERSAULN YLS'IERVAY ON 15SlIEC p G LVt''EANING THE REAR LUN POINT DRAIN 4 1HE VALVE IS LOCATED LfakNEATH THE FUUIING AND 15 NUI ALasSIPLE. OR SERV1lAR AS NO(ED IN PREVILXIS I/l� INS'VELIIUN REPUR1. F 1H1S DRAIN DISNCRktlb NATER UNTO NEIb1•I6UKIN6 LUl AND YOU EARLIt'R STATED THAr You WOULD Nllf AF' WVE !Hr:. ESPECIAL.I.V IN 1HE LI0fT IHA1 SUMS OF IHR WAlEF. V r10 ►+t rKUM ThE UUffLR VUWN 8WUIU. i IH1S REAR L(jCP'i TUN LAN 9JWOR1 Lkf*L SVACE DkAINAR PU1 I5 NO( IU & IN LIEU Of ThE URIUINAL ERUNT LOCATIUIf 1HA1 WAS SALI[IED BY 1HE BUILDEk. ETL., AS l+R YLIUR PNEVIWS SfArEMENTy, 1C.-THE fAONf LW PAIN( MUST 9 F141C11ONAL.°AND "WRIER LAN'1 bE LEFI STANDING kktF WAY U0 ON ;& VALVE." PLLA% KELP IN MIND 1HA'I NUTH1Nf, HAS BEEN DUNE 10 kFMLDY SHE ;'PUNEM. NUR OIO iO CWkEY ATfEMVf TO TINE 'l UH UURRECI ThE i;bUVk ]SSUES SIM* YOUR FIRST Ckk1lF1ED tFIEP$ WLRL MAILED TO 41M. THAW YOU HEAIN FUR YUIJN AT1ENiIUN iU 1!iESE MAITLkS. ;ERY T ILY YOUR , J IV-V,LAS ffl Rf4DY / 16460 5W HOWS LRT. 71bARD, OR 4/c1:3 rrY *V4 Y Timms s,-ro �fNC pw TO r1 .V89 ZZZ £OS AMM N2i31S3M d6i = i0 86-ZO - 1pW . r,/-D4 W-' 7;5; 2�G -33�-- 1k4-002r- rWA, (_ c ve,r A'/. 7 /iqA' yorr2 ��:�t'��0�rU�y� /.3•�iY(r- � ��1�D2��aJ (,,r 410-9 WAF( Y? 10 f = 7/-�� )?PWh%s 76�fi fry N2�,�-_ .5P" IWO Thi C.tW Oe--5- toe, S �r G,er 7TH 16q� . Ori yes LAI- yo-elr 0A n Z Y 70 d }b89 Z22 Eor, / AHIM NNA-LSAM d6t = T a t36--00--AeW CONS ON CONTRACTORS BOARD SED INVES N REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1/ J# _ Claim Number Date of Investiga'on Lombon 49601 147 1 �. ►,�- m _a=--_-••• �'•,• 16400-SVv Hods Q-t Tim rDR Claimant: T_Opu�ane LanY LeGrac*y_— — Res n4-en _Melody Woods _--- Present _—_-- Clalmant(s): Doug and Lany LeGrady Respavient(s): "rom car" Others: Dan Seept.rqer, Day PlunlNng Co. Page_( of Claim Itrm — '--- —! Mxroa Report and RFmmmendation Cost - - Estimate The DartleS have mutually agovrir>g reed to resolve this claim in the foll _manner- __- 1,8,4 The respondent will resolve the Issues of violations that have hewn raised in the investigation — report done by the City of llgard, Inspection Supervisor Darrel Waddris, regarding these Items. Re items_ l,z and 3. Item #4 is not an issue. 2,5,11, The respondent will pay the claimants on this date, $4S6.00 -the satisfy the plumbing issues as �12 well as the debris In OW gutters from construction, Tl,e parties also agree that this is a substituted contract and any monetary damages sought - du-! to a breach of contract, through no fault of the claimant, will be baitd only on tris a n�ment. Claim items _3 4,6,L1Q_ listed In the Statement of Claim have been res4er d or are outside the scope of the Constnictlon Contractors board. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT: I agree m begin work by �1LZ1/9$ and complete the work I agree to comply with, and permit the respondent to comply with, Oil or before _ 2(,1(4B to comply with the the recommendations contained In this report as settlement of this Txmmendations contained in this repcM. I understand that claim. 1 understand that I do not have to accept these I do not have to accept the'sp recommendations or sign this rerommendAtions or sign this settlement agreement. I understand setdemerrt agreement. I understand that, if I cho" to sign that, if I choose to sign this agm_ement, I will be bound by it, this agreement, I will be gond th'it Respondent Date L./ t;a Dale Morgan, lnvestir]ator%Mediatot 10 ' d l s� a ��? FOS LiIM NNAIsAM dtZ = TO SS-ZO-ApW FEB 27 19e 12:49 BAP.BS POSTAL PLUS TIGARD+OR 503 590 y734 TO-. 503 6e4 7297 P02 2-27-1998 Construction Contractors Board Attn: Enid Osburn Re: Claim 149601-107 LeGrady vs Tan Carey/Melody Woods homes Dear Enid Osburn: In reference to the above claim, an erroneous letter was sent. from Toni Carey's attorney, Mr. Sahagian. It expresses that a resolution has been reached regarding the issues of code violations with the City of Tigard. Please be advised that an inspection by Rick P,-Ien, City of Tigard building inspector, did NOT pass the itcns in question. The report of 2/6/98 (enclosed) addresses the issues and the electrical is not to code, nor did t Tom Carey, or his designate, try to remedy the flooding in the crawl space before or after 2/6/98. Again, please let np reiterate that this claim is NOT to be closed and the issues are NOT in compliance. The repairs were to have been completed by 2/21/98 as per our settlement agreement. Tan Carey has defaulted by inaction and estimates for repair by qualified contractors are enrout.e to you. Please call ine at 503-524-3231 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, boualas Wrady 16460 SW Hoops Court Tigard, OR 97223 MICHAEL R. SAHAGM AT17ORNEV .'.T LAW 3895 S.W. 185TH AVENUE, SUITE 120 ALOHA.OREGON 97007 FAX(503)591-7122 (503) 'j42-5935 February 24 , 1998 Darrel "Hap" Watkins Inspection Supervisor 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: 16140 S.W. Hoops Ct. , Tigard, OR. My client: Melody Woods Homes Dear Mr. Watkins: I received your message this date that the above referenced home has pas gd all ingp tigns. The reason I am bothering you for a letter is due to the fact that the C.C.B. had a requirement that all work had to be completed by Lebruary_ -, 1998. We want to be able to assure the C.C.B. ank, the owners of the home that we are in full compliance. Very truly yours, 7 ian Michael. R Saha g Attorney at Law MRS/ds cc: Melody Woods Homes Doug & Lany LeGrady Construction Contractors Board MICHAEL R. SAHAGIAN ATTORNEY AT U.W 3895 S.W. 185TH AVENUE. SUITE 120 ALOHA.OREGON 97007 FAX(503)591-7122 (503) 542-593:5 February 10, 1998 Darrel "Hap" Watkins Inspection Supervisor 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Investigation of 16140 S.W. Hoops Court My client: Melody Woods Homes Dear Mr. Watkins: Thank you for faxing me your letter dated November 12 , 1997. I understand all four problems listed in that :Letter have been satisfied. Please advise in writing that the City of Tigard is satisfied; and, will have no further involvement in this matter. Very truly yours, z l2e- Michael R. Sahag' n Attorney at Law MRS/ds cc: Tom Carey C I ry o r j- /6 �lGv -sGv /foo�s C'`a�.Rr PCARi011 02 `F,922 3 S2Y - 3231 f s= ///p' f/o� T�h4l - ..T'rE�f �� j� y ��?l ��F_ ,�J .0/�Y� .t//�►s � 2. �' .� v d L�11Y'T`RAr'/L2s 6 CAk, AAO �o�r �� A T7fi4.s/ 3:v 02t7i lra moi,nF2 7�r /y C+F/fI /1� 2 - 2(-�� l A,,)V15C -4 4.bR 0 OF cel ZOW /45 rAiWs rO W,? UAW-6 Rim /V PV-4 r r E _54, /la 4Ji1 r CAA( /%-0445-r �1` G7i4S 11 121 y 77tZ S:rRo5,iT- ff� kl'� f u c c Y - 11 �F T!I� 7i /cc feu /g/2 9A G 71;� i0 " d £V89 eee E09 ANIM N2i31SAM del : 90 86-Z2-UPr CONS ON CONTRACTORS BOARD r OSB INVE N REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Claim Number Date o1 Investigation Location _ 49601__107t�ca�ra�4.3A4;z._ 164ti0 Sw HoQs-sR, Tigard OR,, Claimant:__ _ Do!jg and Lany Led ad y_!.!___ _ --•------. _— ReSQondenk: _Metpdy Woods H�Dme_ Corp---_�_._____ _� __�- -- --•--- ---- Prtsent: Claimant(s): Doug and Lany LeGrady RPspondent(s): Tom Carey Other-5 Dan SeepMer,Day Plumbing Co. Page of o"^'i'r" �~ Report and Recommendation Cmc �— The aarties have mutvalty agreed W resolve this claim in the following manner: 1,8,9 The respondent will resolve the Issues of violations that have been raised In the investigation report done by the City of Tigard, Inspection Supervisor Darrel Waticins, regarding thew Rents. Retort items _#_1,2_and 3.- Item #4 isnot an Issue. 2,5,11, The respondent will pay the claimants an this date, $450.00 to satisfy the plumbing issues as 12well as Use debris In the clutters from construction. The parties also agree that this Is a substituted contract and any monetary damages sought due to a breach of contract, through no fault of the claimant, will be based only on flus a rerment. Claim items - 1� listed In tip! Statement of Claim hava been resolved or are outside the scope of the �4.6.7 Construction Contractors Board. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT: I agree to begin work by _"JIM– and complete the Work I agree to comply with, and permit the respondent to comply with, on or before _.2L2V9-6— to comply with the the recommendations contained In this report as settlement of this recommendations contained in this report. I understand that claim. I understand that I do riot have to accept these I do not have to accept these recommendations or sign this recommendations or sign this Settlement agreement. I understand settlement agreement. I understand that, If I choose to sign that, if I choose to sign this agreement, I will be bound by it. this agreement, 1 will be. bound by it. Date Respondent Uate Claimant u� Dale Morgan, Investigator%Mediator ZO ' d £b539 Zze £OS ANIM NHAJS�JM dZt = SO 86- 2Z-URP , Construction Contractors Board FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PO Box 14140 CLAIM NUMBER: Salem,OR 97-,09-6052 STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1, Person MakingComplainC 2. CoroplaiotAgainst: Name Name _ CCB Y Companv(if registered contratar)r CCB it✓ Company Mailing Addrcis Mailing Ad4mss City_ � Home Phone City - � Zip Phone(s) 7 1Zip ) 3-i h/ Syi UD Work Phone d, Contract: Oral Submit checks,invoices,etc.,to verify eonaactual 3. Nafurt•ofC.otnplaiot: _ //�/•. �/.?nvc ❑ ( fY relationship) Chun by C�Aner JR41Wrinen(Cop),must be amwhcd) Claim by Owner—Cownruction Licn Filed Contract Dau Total Anwunt of Contract Amount Paid to Date [] Clam by General Cnntraaar against So!• iJ s , __ ❑ Clain by Sabcontraswr against General Job Address 10/x „7// , .f-;• ,w I er ResidrnrW ❑ Claus by Employee street t:,'/( 67 j ►✓ /�', ' ';'1 r/ CutrunciesalAnduarial NOTT ifcl=m bv material or equipment supplier,use Form C'� - Stan — Zip Whit InY was to be done und!r the cgntract(i r. ,build house,ete.)7 i - — /1, /i�c c 71T) r� / t � FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Due Wotic Stmud Dale ContractorCecscd Work —' P — -. Rer.iravion Uates Regis "f yIe 1f you arr tenable to senlc this mailer with the Occupancy Date Claim Type. contraLtnr do you believe the remonahle cost RegAnd Datcs of Rond Period of repair will exceed T 1,000'? ]Yes ❑ No Banding Compen) Bond No Bond Amount S m Check this bo:ii other claim(s)have been filed afTccung dtis property (Claim No,($)_ '� ' c� 94 Div period ❑ Check this box If this issue has been submioed to a court or arbitration for determinauion or resolution,and attach details. No. 6, Briefly List Items of Complaint BY NUMBER: 1 O(A) -Pr i h r OCA A c r- fixra�ui tr[- f (�_./'�N L �n�`� say tri z /ret 0 _IL__LZrI (. Sf 9 u4 a_ Co (r T CV e L3 / - O _Se4 rji /4r Af2ryr� 62Al_�rz 1. P4u w a i.K F- 04Q(2/yi tY_ LnS WE Ili 5 r Ri Uhl (11 ff 2 KI vt ) At rs'�a yea r Ta I ZuS'i / 1 L QV_(f"1�1�_2cY_�P lot' k1(tc _Sim x' k [U /r!ttD X6)1, C:l k<KIA(- t S1AK 54,4r,0 T_. - �- HU- -Xor s cry I /1 _ /1�A � N r /'/ �i eL__l sFgi ,� m1ccr /11i' N Ic j ("ids l4�r 5��r'� Jf+ �±rFX�rrr� /[tri�F /�c(c►•r s ( y� Rvw6),& ilii = T-W- TO o _r )/ )Vc)PVLy AhD Of(ri 06JPP14 02011 st Dirt- / Y ONIU Thr loteg ting is true.ccmpletc,and correct to the best of my know ledge and belief. (Attach additional sheers ojpape•rjne•cessa!v)(6Nr l / Cate ��'.Z� y / _ �— . Signa-urt _ RETtWI ALL 011F.S TO CO -TR 'T10N CONTRACTORS ROARi) vI5.070-Ser Cnpy of written contract must to cued. oma lm.mm�fRly 1 I/941 V0 cl F:bIR9 Z77 £05 71NIM NH1114_;304 AVi : cif) k36- Z7-1J"(- k47 1440 Sh1��R1� Cf?c�c ,eriY�- GAN rtH� Q�uF{rfZ2� Si c k � /�,�IYJ / rt�in r aR- 776-RP � K jPL I a-,a I3 y C tee C PP/1,4- ^Z O17714 s r 0 61 C T Lf' SAO",E IWO 6<4 6 r0`47- 11,41<1i!&70 IVY & /i=ce j TR/ro -r;j-c lievrr 4>At 6wilyG ray ?42fig,rL,-f0 11E2 llNe( 17Y S4Y�� 1*C'( 04�2c HJT" fo 0,+R29tfH Q1,T1-)64f1L cJf pipHr INY 0c2 (=r1cTu2rFS -TyQ(ok_ Tlfftr7 , ��tj�Y CAPIC 8A-Ckl 011-14 4)1( 4r-�ryiFq viz ld:f A. fYA401, �,FiQldiy�c P4-2 T 0,1: 7c ov�j r Pa 74QM(�6 Du 2 C',gCC- . y . Dccd� (?(4IcDV-2 J 76)�ri w V y , XoT" C�A-CL �2 �k �`fSi,/f� T fG�1l�E2S "1fAfJ/v2_ l�iFsf�l� h1Y %fct(1l". l�� l�AS /fOrni�ft !��!/illl �w ?r1 l��rr1/ /2s lJ62i� A#642-y IS¢C6)IF 01 DA d?qY /iklm min . PIT O Q(-S h'c-r /d"ASAI C Y Get trT 2.s 11 /lICL(4t)1.ti( (- �r'�}lCS S)v-r1-lcl C'An,-C� ,'/1/H'4n f 6 . his rr- o)4-R P1m r( R rG4-0RS L?r l�c/�(1r N r✓oo�� 4,&J) r,'l *Ie Cu 2�2�kn Y l S liYc jig i ✓�s a,el, //-- '" I<Y fir-: t�yifr l� rK (ad 13sK s �rovly �r,�( C�1r,Y�� .4R h��A,:W( !4/ cmc SPS£ , lea T Kb7r(� r3,f1w Rwr LkDTW5 Tiff G��Yt) 1154r,(JtJ ✓ �iFf �� Y.>> i'/�NC�(� in 69 D/�- VO i t, air r s:(), l2lt r1 n+: I_SAM AE: t = q0 BG- .December 1, 1977 CITY OF TIGARD Melody Wood Homes QREGOPI Attn: "'om Carey 5607 SW Gillenwater PI Beaverton, OR 97007 Re. Investigation of 16460 SW Hoops Ct Dear Mr. Carey, A complaint was submitted to this department by Mr & Mrs Leorady concerning a non-functioning low point drain in the crawlspace at the above address. It is also alleged that the foundation vent(s) is allowing surf Ace water to flow into the crawlspace. Rick Bolen, building inspector, was assigned the investigation inspection which resulted in the following list of code violations: 1.) The low point (crawlspace) drain does not function on the street side of the 'louse. Suspect lack of slope between inlet and outlet of the drain is not sufficient for flow. The crawlspace is too flat for the water to run to the drain that was placed in the back of the house.(which seems to function) 2.) Some foundation vents are allowing some surface water flow into the crawlspace. Insufficient slope at grade away from houFe, no protective wells around the vents that are at or below grade. 3.) There is a live 120 volt wire on the ground in the crawlspace that was not properly terminated in a junction box. Another 240 volt wire is on the ground. 4.) The hardwood flooring is warped in places. Inspection at the floor vents did not reveal a vapor barrier between the 2x6 car decking and the finish flooring as required (see attached interpretive ruling 93-78) Please respond to this office by December 15, 1997 concerning your plans to correct the above vic4ations. Failure to respond will result in further legal actions. If I can be of assistance or answer questions, call me at 639-4171 ext 416. S' cerely Darrel "H p" Watkins Inspection Supervisor cc: Doug and Lany Legradv 1,1125 SW Hall filed., Tigard, OR 97223 (503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772 -- — -- -- ORFGOIN Interpretive Ruling No. 93-78 FLOOR VAPOR PARRIER INSTALLATION REQUESTED BY: PPPI Manual Review Co�nimittee QUESTION: interpretation of acceptable vapor barriers in floors. Four figures are presented, %krith a request that each be addressed. These figures are attached. APPLICABLE CODE SE(TIONS: 1993 Oregon Structural Specialty Code(OSSC),Section 5303(04 and One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code (Dwelling Code), Section 5303(f)4. BACKGROUND: Figure 1 utilizes the plywood subfloor as the vapor barrier. Nearly all plywood used for sobfloors is made with exterior grade glue. Two layers or more of exterior grade plywood clue will nice the LO perm rating requirement. Other structural material such as oriented strand board may have a perm rating of 1.0 or less. Unfaced insulation may be used. Figure 2 has separate sheeting, material ins.cdled between the :wood decking subfloor and underlayrnent. Unfaced insulation may be used. Figure 3 has a vapor barrier as an integral part of the insulatic r as kraft, foil or vinyl facing. Using the stapling flange to keep the insulation in place, either inset or face-stapled, is not acceptable. The vapor barrier in Figure 4 is sheeting that is either placed on top of the beams or joists, or in between them on top of the insulation, in MlLd-t with both the subfloor and insulation. Use of faced (vapor barrier) insulation is also acceptable in Figures 1, 2 arid 4 but considered unnecessary. FINDINGS: This interpretation is authorized by ORS 455.060, Rulings on Accept,-bility"of Materials, Designs or Methods of Construction and Attorney General's Opinion OP-5208 issued October 1, 1981, which advised the statute permits authoritative interpretations of existing code requirements. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: The Structural Code Advisory Board rules Figures 1 through 4 are acceptable alternate methods. All four figures (1, 2, 3 and 4) comply with Section 5303(04 requirements. The vapor barrier must have a peen rating of 1.0 and be installed on the warm side (in the winter) of the insulation. The barrier can be a separate component or attached to the insulation. Hoor insulation must kept in place with adequate supports. Interpretive Ruling 93-78 replaces PPPI-4071. /John Talbott, Chairman Date Structural Code Advisory Board Ther o nendations and findirrns of the Stru,.nrral Code Advisory Board are accepted and the cocl si a ns re ad ted. G —1ary ick , Ad linistrator^ Date Building ( ides )ivision INTERPRETIVE RULING NO. 93-78 Heated Side(in winter) Figure #9 Vapor barrier is the glue-line in the plywood (2 or more larninations using exterior grade glue). Unfaced insulation may be used. Unconditioned Side Figure #2 He,ated Side(in winter) Subfloor is 2x wood material A 1 perm vapor barrier sheeting is installed continous between the subfloor and underlayment. Un- faced insulation may be used. Unconditioned Side Figure #3 �k2te!S�Ye'(in ranter) r Vapor barrier is an integral part of insulation (kraft,foil or vinyl faced). Stapling flange is at the sides of r beams or joists. Insulation is supported unr'r:rneath. The insulation cannot be held in place by stapling Uncondt;onedSide only. Heated Side(in winter) Figure #4 Vapor barrier is a 1 perm rated continuous sheeting material. It is installed on top of the beamsloists. Unfaced insulation may be used. Uncnnddioned Side 1� November 12, 1977 i Melody Wood Homes Attn: Tom Carey 6607 SW Gillenwater PI Beaverton, OR 97007 Re: Investigation of 16460 SW Hoops Ct Dear Mr. Carey, A complaint was submitted to this department by Mr $ Mrs Legrady concerning a non-functioning low point drain in the crawlspace at the above address. It is also alleged that the foundation vent(s) is allowing surface water to flow into the crawlspace. Rick Bolen, building inspector, was assigned the investigation inspection which resilted in the following list of code violations: 1.) The low point (crawlspace) drain does not function on the street side of the house. Suspect lack of slope between inlet and outlet of the drain is not sufficient for flow. The crawlspace is too flat for the water to rur, to the drain that was placed in the back of the house.(which seems to function) 2.) Some foundation vents are allowing some surface water flow into the crawlspace. InSLIfficient slope at grade away from house, no protective wells around the vents that are at or below grade. 3.) There is a live 120 volt wire on the ground in the crawlspace that was not properly terminated in a junction box. Another 240 volt wire is on the ground. 4.) The hardwood flooring is warped in places. Inspection at the floor vents did not reveal a vapor barrier between the 2x6 car decking and the finish flooring as required (see attached interpretive ruling 93-78) Please respond to this office by November 2.6, 1997 concerning your plans to correct the above violations. Failure to respond will result in further legal actions. If I can be of assistance or answer questions, call me at 639-4171 ext 416. Sincerely, Darrel "Hap" Watkins Post-It/Fax Note 7671 °a�"�_6-4' Paso, Inspection Supervisor T.,X' a i From N S. co.meui 1 Co CC' Doug and Lany Legrady Phone M Phone N & 54 _�� Fax N f'i1/ 7/.;?