Builder and board debate fire risk and material classification for composite shingles

Builder Sam Wood and the homeowner emphasized fire performance and durability while the building department's earlier determination that the product might violate the materials prohibition prompted the hearing.

Sam Wood testified he has used the cedar‑impression shingles for decades and pointed to NFPA and ASTM standards he said the product meets. "These, if anything, they would probably melt, but, they're not vinyl," Wood said, adding that the shingles have favorable ignitability and radiant heat characteristics compared with untreated cedar.

Chairman Joel Boris relayed that the building inspector had conducted research into fire ratings and toxicity and found no clear evidence of increased fire hazard, but also said the board's role was to apply the code as written. The building department's interpretation that the product fell within a prohibited material category is what led to the variance request.

No independent laboratory reports were entered into the hearing record. The board accepted the facts before it and based its variance decision on hardship and the existing installation rather than issuing a definitive technical finding about long‑term fire performance.