Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Materials Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant warns against broad use of unproven façade products; commissioners ask for sample boards and installer qualifications
Summary
City consultant Mark Ford briefed the commission on criteria for evaluating new exterior materials, citing field failures of some synthetic ‘brick’ and EIFS panels and urging cautious, pilot use with installer qualifications and sample boards; commissioners asked staff to compile consultant memos and consider an approved‑materials inventory.
The Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission spent the second portion of its March 18 meeting on a wide‑ranging review of building materials, led by the city’s architectural consultant, Mark Ford.
Ford told commissioners he evaluates materials based on objective performance testing, appropriate application in the building, and the quality of installation. He urged commissioners to weigh aesthetics against durability and long‑term maintenance costs when considering new products. “Time is gonna be the real judge,” Ford said when explaining why laboratory tests must be complemented by field evidence of long‑term performance.
Using photographs from local examples, Ford walked the commission through different product families: true masonry and thin (cut) brick veneer, modern thin‑brick mechanical systems, and foam‑based EIFS panels that imitate brick. He showed instances where acrylic‑coated foam panels blistered and delaminated after penetrations or fasteners were added, and pointed to the installation details (edge trim, flashing and attachment method) as frequent causes of failure: “It’s wherever they’ve penetrated it with any kind of mechanical fastener. It’s blistered. It’s got water behind it, and it starts to fail.”
Commissioners and staff asked practical questions about when the city should permit alternate materials and how to limit risk. Recommendations that emerged from the discussion included documenting consultant reviews in a shared resource folder for commissioners, requesting physical sample boards for unfamiliar products, specifying installer qualifications in project specifications, and piloting new materials only in limited, secondary applications until long‑term performance is demonstrated.
Ford said manufacturer testing, warranty language and independent, locally visible precedents matter; he also flagged enforcement gaps because warranties and recourse can be limited if a product fails years after construction. Commissioners asked staff to assemble previous consultant memos and an approved‑materials inventory and to consider requiring more detailed construction‑level details for materials reviews.
The commission agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting and asked staff to route follow‑up requests through the planning staff; no regulatory changes were adopted at this session.
