What's your experience with fire code setbacks?

[HX_Guy]

What has your guys' experience been with how strict the inspectors are about fire code setbacks?

Here where I live (Peoria, AZ), the rule is 36" setback from the ridge (on both sides of the ridge, so a 72" walkway) and 18" from any hips and valleys, unless there are no PV panels on the adjacent roof plane, then you can go to to the edge with no setback needed.

I've had some installers tell me that the fire dept is very strict and other say that they don't even get up on the roof, they do a visual walk around from the ground and if there aren't any blatant violations you are ok.

[kmm]

What has your guys' experience been with how strict the inspectors are about fire code setbacks?

I don't know where you are located but the rep for the company working on my solar proposal mentioned the same thing. My next door neighbor had his solar installed late last year and did not have to meet the new fire codes. Because of the new codes, I cannot put as many panels on one particular roof as I want to.

(I am located in the San Diego area).

[HX_Guy]

Sorry should have included that. I'm in Peoria, AZ (Phoenix Metro).

[Shockah]

IMHO, it would be better to go with the black & white than the gray.

It would be a real bummer to have to remove a row of panels because you got an inspector who is having a bad day, while your neighbor gets the easy-going inspector.

Those scenarios happen here all the time with our AHJs.
Inconsistent enforcement and inspectors having their individual interpretations of the rules.

[silversaver]

yes, go with black and white.

[russ]

The setback is very easy to see from the ground.

[+3 Golfer]

Why are you even asking? You do not want code violations. If it's an issue see if you can get a variance as many communities have yet to adopt such setbacks. I can't believe that the installer would knowingly violate code. You don't want a violation discovered years later.

In my two installs, the inspectors never got up on the roof to inspect but there was no setback requirements then.

[HX_Guy]

I'm asking because I have some spots where it will violate the setback but barely...for example if I run 2 rows of panels in landscape, at 40" wide per panel, that's 80" and that area requires a 36" setback so I need 116" total. The roof however is only 110" at that point, so it would encroach into the 36" setback by 6".

[+3 Golfer]

So, I guess the installer didn't file the plans yet and discovered the issue. Most city Building and Safety dept. are very helpful. I'd go down in person and talk to them. Usually you can speak to someone that knows what is going on and they can give advise as to whether they would grant a variance for 6". Take the plans with you. My guess they will.

[russ]

So, I guess the installer didn't file the plans yet and discovered the issue. Most city Building and Safety dept. are very helpful. I'd go down in person and talk to them. Usually you can speak to someone that knows what is going on and they can give advise as to whether they would grant a variance for 6". Take the plans with you. My guess they will.

Agreed - thinking the inspector won't look is not a smart tactic.

[HX_Guy]

Yeah, haven't filed any plans yet...don't even have the plans yet, still figuring out layouts, but wanted to see what I might expect.

[TxSolarPro]

In some locales we have to offset 36" from the hips and the ridges. You can ask for permission but I would be very surprised if they allow you to violate their code. Then if something happens on the future they are opening themselves up to liability. And the inspectors usually just ask us to confirm that the space he is seeing is indeed 36". We hate failing inspections and unfortunately the codes are often written in stone.

[HX_Guy]

Well that's a bummer but I see your point. If they start being lenient, where do they stop? If 4" is ok, why not 6"? I actually talked to the fire dept code guy and asked about a variance and he said they never grant variances. I think my whole design doesn't work in this case which is really a bummer.

This is what I was hoping to go with but I obviously have major setback violations, especially on the east facing section where there is 0 setback along a whole side. Seems like I am really going to have to reduce the number of panels or try to figure something else out, maybe use the west facing side too which I really didn't want to do.



I was hoping that since the roof surface adjacent to the east facing section is basically unused (except for the 2 panels, which could be moved if needed) that it would be ok. I guess we could still submit the plans and if they ok them, I assume it would be ok come inspection time too.

[HX_Guy]

Thinking about it some more, there is no way those plans would fly so I re-arranged everything and this should be the final design, which respects all fire code setbacks.

[Shockah]

That's a large house... can't see how large your property is though.

If reducing the number of panels is that big of a concern,
could you erect a carport/gazebo/tool shed to place an additional 4-8 panels on? Or a ground/post mount?