Home / Roofing Permits / Can You Roof Over It? Layer Limits and Tear-Off Rules by Jurisdiction
Can You Roof Over It? Layer Limits and Tear-Off Rules by Jurisdiction
Before you price a re-roof you need one answer: can a new layer go over the existing one, or is this a full tear-off? Jurisdictions answer it very differently, and the split does not follow state lines the way you would expect. Oklahoma is the cleanest case in the country — all sixteen Oklahoma jurisdictions we cover require a tear-off, not because each city decided so, but because the state did: the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission amended IRC R908.3.1.1 to bar a re-cover “where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles,” a de facto statewide one-layer cap that individual cities cannot loosen. Texas sits at the opposite end, and Dallas is the outlier of the entire corpus: it amended the recover trigger UP from two layers to three, so a Dallas roof carrying two existing coverings may still legally take a third. Colorado is the most internally divided state we cover — sixteen of its jurisdictions require tear-off while twelve allow one overlay, so neighboring Front Range towns give opposite answers. Nebraska’s metro cities (Omaha, Bellevue, Papillion, and Douglas County by incorporation) deleted the roof-recover section from their adopted code outright. Kansas is stranger still: the Wichita–Sedgwick County Unified Building and Trade Code deletes the re-covering provision and enacts nothing in its place, so Wichita, Sedgwick County, Andover and Haysville have no local layer cap at all, while the Kansas City–side suburbs 200 miles away allow exactly two. Watch the conditional cases — Superior CO permits a single overlay only with an engineer’s report certifying the structure can carry the load, Golden CO allows one overlay but caps the combined weight at 750 pounds per square, and La Vista NE and Sarpy County NE bar overlays on asphalt specifically in hail-exposure areas. Every card quotes the jurisdiction’s own text; where a jurisdiction states no layer rule, we say so rather than inferring one. A layer limit is not the same thing as a repair-permit threshold — for how big a repair can get before it needs a permit, see the repair-threshold facet.
No overlay — full tear-off required — Colorado (25)
Adams County - Building Safety Division (Adams County, Colorado (unincorporated))
"The maximum number of layers of roofing permitted is one (1), per Ordinance No. 12 and amendment to R908.3 of the 2024 IRC." "The maximum number of layers on a flat roof is one (1)."
City of Brighton - Building Division (City of Brighton, Colorado)
"New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings" -- Building Division policy effectively bars roof recover/overlay; full tear-off is required for re-roofs. (Code references in this document are to the 2021 IRC.)
City of Cañon City - Building Department (City of Cañon City, Colorado)
Cañon City Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.030 (Amendments), item N, amends Section R908.3.1.1(3) of the adopted IRC to read: "Where the existing roof has one or more applications of any type of roof covering." (The base IRC provision bars roof recover where the existing roof has "two or more" applications; Cañon City tightens this to "one or more," so roof recover over any existing covering is not permitted -- full tear-off is required once one layer is already present.)
City of Centennial - Building Division (City of Centennial, Colorado)
"Roof replacement shall include the removal of all existing layers of roof coverings to the deck." Existing-roof repair/replacement work "shall meet the requirements of chapter 9 section R908 of the 2021 International Residential Code." Materials removed from one roof cannot be reused on any other roof ("harvested material shall be considered used material and are not allowed"). (City of Centennial, Residential Roof Repairs and Re-Roofing policy page.)
City of Fort Lupton - Building Department (City of Fort Lupton, Colorado)
"Tear-Off: All existing roofing materials must be removed down to the deck before applying new materials (one-layer overlay is rarely permitted under modern fire and wind codes)." FAQ: "How many layers of roofing are allowed? All existing layers must be removed down to the decking."
City of Fountain (permits via Pikes Peak Regional Building Department) (City of Fountain, Colorado)
"Section R908.3.1 Roof-recover. Delete." (RBC303.4.73) -- the IRC's roof-recover allowance is removed from the adopted code, so full tear-off of existing roof coverings is required for asphalt shingle re-roofs. Two exceptions added to R908.3 Roof Replacement (RBC303.4.72): complete/separate roofing systems such as standing-seam metal that transmit roof loads directly to the structure without relying on the existing roof for support do not require removal of existing coverings; and metal panel, metal shingle, or concrete/clay tile coverings may be installed over existing wood shake roofs per Section 908.4. Per PPRBD guidelines, which govern permits for Fountain.
City of Littleton - Building and Code Compliance Division (City of Littleton, Colorado)
"R908.4 Roof recover not allowed... A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: a. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. b. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. c. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering d. The roof has one or more existing layers of asphalt shingles." Section R908.4.1 (Roof recovering over wood shingles or shakes) is deleted in its entirety. (Sec. 4-1-5, Amendments to the 2024 IRC.)
City of Longmont - Building Inspection Division (City of Longmont, Colorado)
"How many layers of roofing are allowed? Roofs are allowed to have only 1 layer of shingles." (Single Family Residential Re-roofs guide; commercial roofs are handled separately and allow up to two layers on low-slope built-up roofing.)
City of Manitou Springs Planning Department (permits via PPRBD) (City of Manitou Springs, Colorado)
"Section R908.3.1 Roof-recover. Delete." (2023 Pikes Peak Regional Building Code, Sec. RBC303.4.73) -- the IRC's roof-recover allowance is removed from the code enforced in Manitou Springs, so full tear-off of existing roof coverings is required for asphalt shingle re-roofs. Two exceptions are added at R908.3 (Sec. RBC303.4.72): complete/separate roofing systems such as standing-seam metal that transmit roof loads directly to the structure without relying on the existing roof for support do not require removal of existing coverings; and metal panel, metal shingle, or concrete/clay tile coverings may be installed over existing wood shake roofs per Section 908.4.
City of Northglenn - Building Division (City of Northglenn, Colorado)
"How many layers of roofing are allowed? All existing layers must be removed." Combined with the re-covering-versus-replacement conditions in the same guide (existing roof water-soaked/deteriorated; existing covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile; two or more existing applications; or asphalt shingles subject to moderate/severe hail exposure), new roof coverings are not to be installed without first removing existing roof coverings -- i.e. full tear-off, no recover.
City of Sheridan Building Department (City of Sheridan, Colorado)
The City's own Roofing Requirements page states: "No roof overlays are allowed for residential re-roofs. Complete tear-off and re-roof with asphalt shingles meeting the current code requirements are required." Commercial buildings follow the exceptions of IBC 1502.1 instead.
City of Sterling Public Works Department - Code Enforcement Division (City of Sterling, Colorado)
The City's Reroof Permit Application form (Public Works Department, Code Enforcement Division) requires the contractor to state the "NUMBER & Type of layers removing" and instructs in bold: "(ALL LAYERS MUST BE REMOVED)". Consistent with the record's own permit_process_note ("All existing roof covering layers must be removed before the new covering is installed"). No recover over an existing layer is permitted; full tear-off is always required for a Sterling reroof permit.
City of Woodland Park Planning & Building Department (City of Woodland Park, Colorado)
Pikes Peak Regional Building Department's Reroof Guidelines handout states: "New asphalt roof coverings shall NOT be installed without first removing ALL existing layers of roof coverings on residential homes. (See 2021 IRC Section 908.3)" -- i.e. no recover over any existing layer is permitted; full tear-off to the deck is required for a new asphalt roof covering.
Douglas County - Building Division (Douglas County, Colorado (unincorporated))
"One layer is permitted. Asphalt shingled roofs shall not be overlaid with an additional layer of asphalt shingles." (Douglas County roofing-permits FAQ, "What is the maximum number of layers of asphalt shingles permitted?")
Jefferson County - Building Division (Jefferson County, Colorado (unincorporated))
"SECTION R908: REROOFING. In section R908.4 (Roof recover) add a new Exception 4. as follows: Exceptions: 4. Where the existing roof covering is asphalt shingles." (Jefferson County Supplement to the 2024 IRC.) This bars roof recover/overlay over an existing asphalt shingle roof, so a full tear-off is required. The county's separate roofing notice restates the same rule in plain language: "Only one layer of asphalt shingles will be allowed per Jefferson County Code Supplement R908-4 exc.4 NO OVERLAYS, COMPLETE TEAROFF REQUIRED." An identical Exception 4 is added for commercial buildings at Section 1512.3 (Roof recover) of the Jefferson County Supplement to the 2024 IBC.
Logan County Planning and Zoning Department (Logan County, Colorado (unincorporated))
The county's "Logan County Roofing Requirements" page states: "One (1) layer of asphalt shingles is allowed per R907.3(4) - NO OVERLAYS, COMPLETE TEAROFF REQUIRED. This means to the exposed deck. No felt or underlayment to remain on roof."
Morgan County Planning, Zoning and Building Department (Morgan County, Colorado (unincorporated))
Morgan County's "Roofing Requirements" excerpt document quotes "R907.3 Re-roofing" in full: "New roof covering shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings." No recover over an existing layer is permitted in unincorporated Morgan County; full tear-off is always required.
Pikes Peak Regional Building Department (El Paso County region, Colorado (including Colorado Springs and surrounding municipalities))
"Section R908.3.1 Roof-recover. Delete." (RBC303.4.73) -- the IRC's roof-recover allowance is removed from the adopted code, so full tear-off of existing roof coverings is required for asphalt shingle re-roofs. Two exceptions added to R908.3 Roof Replacement (RBC303.4.72): complete/separate roofing systems such as standing-seam metal that transmit roof loads directly to the structure without relying on the existing roof for support do not require removal of existing coverings; and metal panel, metal shingle, or concrete/clay tile coverings may be installed over existing wood shake roofs per Section 908.4.
Town of Bow Mar Building Department (Town of Bow Mar, Colorado)
The Town's own Roof Specifications page states "1 LAYER SHINGLE. 2 FLAT" as the maximum permitted roof layers. The codified § 18-9(b)(13) amendment to R908.3.1 Roof recover (2021 IRC, Ord. No. 340, 2024) separately adds: "In the case of a partial reroof, the replacement of shingles shall be of the same type and color," without itself restating a numeric layer cap.
Town of Frederick - Building Department (Town of Frederick, Colorado)
"All old layers to be removed per the 2024 International Residential Code (IRC), Chapter 9, Section R908."
Town of Green Mountain Falls (Pikes Peak Regional Building Department) (Town of Green Mountain Falls, Colorado)
"Section R908.3.1 Roof-recover. Delete." (2017 Pikes Peak Regional Building Code, 2nd Printing 12.7.18, Sec. RBC303.4.66 -- the edition adopted by the Town's Municipal Code Sec. 18-1) -- the IRC's roof-recover allowance is removed from the code enforced in Green Mountain Falls, so full tear-off of existing roof coverings is required for asphalt shingle re-roofs. Two exceptions are added at R908.3 (Sec. RBC303.4.65): complete/separate roofing systems such as standing-seam metal that transmit roof loads directly to the structure without relying on the existing roof for support do not require removal of existing coverings; and metal panel, metal shingle, or concrete/clay tile coverings may be installed over existing wood shake roofs per Section 908.4.
Town of Johnstown - Building Department (Town of Johnstown, Colorado)
The town's 2024 Roofing Regulations handout states: "Tear-Off: All existing roofing materials must be removed down to the deck before applying new materials (one-layer overlay is rarely permitted under modern fire and wind codes)." This is phrased as a general tear-off expectation rather than a numeric layer cap or an explicit R908.3.1.1 citation.
Town of Monument (permits via Pikes Peak Regional Building Department) (Town of Monument, Colorado)
"Section R908.3.1 Roof-recover. Delete." (RBC303.4.73) -- the IRC's roof-recover allowance is removed from the adopted code, so full tear-off of existing roof coverings is required for asphalt shingle re-roofs. Two exceptions added to R908.3 Roof Replacement (RBC303.4.72): complete/separate roofing systems such as standing-seam metal that transmit roof loads directly to the structure without relying on the existing roof for support do not require removal of existing coverings; and metal panel, metal shingle, or concrete/clay tile coverings may be installed over existing wood shake roofs per Section 908.4.
Town of Palmer Lake (permits via Pikes Peak Regional Building Department) (Town of Palmer Lake, Colorado)
NO OVERLAY - full tear-off, with two narrow exceptions. The Pikes Peak Regional Building Code, 2023 Edition, 2nd Printing, deletes the model code's general roof-recover allowance outright: Section RBC303.4.73 provides "Section R908.3.1 Roof-recover. Delete." What remains is Section R908.3, Roof Replacement, which Section RBC303.4.72 amends by renumbering its exception to Exception 1 and adding a second: complete and separate roofing systems, such as standing-seam metal roof systems, that are designed to transmit the roof loads directly to the building's structure, and metal or tile installed over existing wood shake roofs where applied in accordance with Section 908.4. An ordinary asphalt-over-asphalt reroof therefore has no overlay option in Palmer Lake and the existing covering must come off to the deck.
Town of Parker - Building Division (Town of Parker, Colorado)
"No Overlays for asphalt shingles. All other materials will be required to meet code or manufacturer specs." (Number of Layers Allowed row, Re-Roofing Requirements handout, revised 7/1/2026). This is consistent with the town's codified 2021-IRC-era amendment at Parker Municipal Code Section 11.02.050(25) (Ord. 4.91.8 Section 1, 2022), which deletes Subparagraph 3 of IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Recovering versus replacement) and replaces it with: "Where the existing roof has one or more applications of any type of roof covering" -- i.e. roof recover is barred once any covering layer already exists, so a full tear-off is required.
No overlay — full tear-off required — Kansas (1)
No overlay — full tear-off required — Minnesota (3)
City of Burnsville, Minnesota - Building Inspections Department (City of Burnsville, Minnesota)
The City of Burnsville's own "Re-Roofing Requirements" handout, read in full, states under a bold heading: "Re-roofing over existing shingles is prohibited!!!" and explains: "the building code will not allow asphalt shingles to be applied over any existing roof covering. The decking must consist of solid plywood or OSB sheathing or 1'' nominal wood boards." Existing shingles must be torn off before new asphalt shingles are installed -- no overlay/recover is permitted in Burnsville. (Minnesota Rules chapter 1309's own table of parts, read in full, amends IRC Chapter 9 only at 1309.0903 and 1309.0905, above; no separate state rule number was read addressing roof recovering, so this value rests on Burnsville's own document rather than a numbered state rule.)
City of Minnetonka, Minnesota - Building Inspections Division (City of Minnetonka, Minnesota)
FULL TEAR-OFF. Minnetonka is stricter than the state baseline and says so in one sentence, under the "Reroofing" heading of its own Roofing Project Instructions: "All old roof coverings must be removed before installing any new roof coverings. Existing flashing in good condition may be reinstalled. Any sheathing that is replaced must be installed and fastened according to the code." No overlay is contemplated at all. Note the tension a bidder should be aware of: the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1, permits a roof recover over ONE existing layer and bars it only "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," and Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code. Minnetonka publishes the stricter rule regardless, and it is the City that inspects the work, so a bid written around an overlay will meet the City's instruction rather than the state minimum. Take any disagreement to the Building Inspections Division before bidding a recover.
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota - Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) (City of Saint Paul, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED baseline, with an additional CITY-SPECIFIC restriction. Minnesota Rules chapter 1309's own published part list (revisor.mn.gov) runs directly from 1309.0807 (Section R807, Attic Access) to 1309.0903 (Section R903, Weather Protection) and 1309.0905 (Section R905, Requirements for Roof Coverings) -- no 1309.0908 part exists (revisor.mn.gov/rules/1309.0908/ returns HTTP 404), so IRC Section R908 (Roof Replacement), which is where a roof-layer limit would sit in the 2018 IRC that Minnesota incorporates by reference (Minn. R. 1309.0010, subpart 1), is not amended by the state and applies in its unamended form statewide. Saint Paul, however, has its own published city-specific standard that is stricter than a bare unamended-IRC default: DSI's "Reroofing Policy - Asphalt or Fiberglass Shingles" (rev. 02/05/2015 -- the same document already cited in this record for deck sheathing and drip edge) states, as item 1, verbatim: "No overlays are allowed." That is, for asphalt or fiberglass shingle roofs in Saint Paul, a new layer may not be installed over an existing layer at all -- complete tear-off to the deck is required on every reroof, regardless of how many layers are present.
No overlay — full tear-off required — Missouri (2)
City of Belton - Community Development Department (City of Belton, Missouri)
Belton UDC Sec. 10-9(b) (adopting the 2018 International Existing Building Code with local amendments) deletes IEBC "Section 705.3.1 Roof recover," "Section 705.3.1.1 Exceptions," and "Section 705.4 Roof recovering" in their entirety, and amends "Section 705.3 Roof Replacement" to read: "Roof replacement shall be in accordance with 1511.31 of the International Building Code." The recover-vs-replace pathway is eliminated under the City's adopted IEBC -- reroofing routes through the IBC's roof-replacement provisions rather than a recover option. (Ord. No. 2022-4738, § 2, adopted 9-27-2022.)
City of Gladstone, Missouri - Community Development Department (Building and Construction Division) (City of Gladstone, Missouri)
"Only ONE layer of roof covering is allowed" for both residential and commercial reroofing (City of Gladstone roofing requirements page). Corroborated in the adopting ordinance itself: Chapter 200's 9.200.020.3 DELETIONS (2021 IBC) omits "1512.2.1 Roof recover.", "1512.2.1.1 Exceptions.", and "1512.3 Roof recovering." in their entirety, and 9.200.040.3 DELETIONS (2021 IRC) likewise omits "R908.3.1 Roof recover.", "R908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed.", and "R908.4 Roof recovering." -- the recover/overlay pathway is deleted from both the commercial and residential codes as adopted, leaving full tear-off as the only path to a new roof covering.
No overlay — full tear-off required — Nebraska (4)
City of Bellevue - Permits and Inspection Division (City of Bellevue, Nebraska)
Bellevue City Code § 8-18.6(MM)-(NN) (amending the 2021 IRC) deletes "Section R908.3.1, Roof recover," in its entirety and amends "Section R908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed" to read: "A roof recover shall not be permitted." (Ord. 4033, passed 5-4-2021.)
City of Omaha Planning Department - Building & Development Division (City of Omaha, Nebraska)
"Section R908.3.1, Roof recover. Delete this section in its entirety. Section R908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover is not allowed. Section R908.4, Roof recovering. Delete this section in its entirely [sic]." (Complete 2018 IRC Amendments, effective July 1, 2020, p. 445) -- full tear-off of all existing roof coverings is required; no conditional recover/overlay allowance remains under the local amendment.
City of Papillion - Building & Fire Safety Department (City of Papillion, Nebraska)
"R908.3.1 Delete; Roof Recover. Section R908.3.1 of the International Residential Code is hereby deleted." "R908.3.1.1 Amended; Roof recover not allowed. Revise to read: A roof recover is not allowed." "R908.4 Amended; Complete Roof Replacement vs Repair. When it is determined that over 50% of the roof is in need of repair, the entire roof covering and underlayment will be replaced with compliant materials and methods." (Papillion Municipal Code § 92-15(B), Ordinance No. 1934; consistent with the City of Papillion Roofing Requirements handout, "Roof Recover (908.3.1.1 Amended): Roof recover is not allowed.")
Douglas County Environmental Services - Permits and Inspections (Douglas County, Nebraska)
Douglas County's Residential Building Code is adopted "as amended by the City of Omaha - 2018 IRC" (county's Current Building Codes page). Under that incorporation, Omaha's amendment governs: "Section R908.3.1, Roof recover. Delete this section in its entirety. Section R908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover is not allowed. Section R908.4, Roof recovering. Delete this section in its entirely [sic]." (Complete 2018 IRC Amendments, effective July 1, 2020, p. 445) -- full tear-off of all existing roof coverings is required.
No overlay — full tear-off required — Oklahoma (20)
City of Bethany - Community Development Department (City of Bethany, Oklahoma)
Bethany's Code of Ordinances § 150.001 does not amend Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) of its adopted Residential Code -- its only Table-R301.2(1)-area amendments are the climatic design criteria and Section 2603.5.1 -- so the operative text is the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission's 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)), which amends R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover to read: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." (Bethany's own ordinance cites an outdated OUBCC subchapter number for this incorporation; the current OUBCC rule text above is the operative one.)
City of Bixby - Development Services Department (City of Bixby, Oklahoma)
"R908.3.1.1 Roof Re-Cover - OUBCC Amendatory. ... 'R9083.1.1 Roof Re-Cover. A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted.'" (Bixby Code of Ordinances, Title 9, IRC 2018 Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies -- the section number is misprinted "R9083.1.1" in the ordinance text itself and is quoted here as published.)
City of Broken Arrow - Community Permitting and Licensing Division (City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma)
Sec. 6-37 (Ord. No. 3746, 9-20-2022; Ord. No. 3826, 4-16-2024), read in full from (a) through (y), does not amend IRC Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies at all -- no R908 provision appears anywhere in the ordinance's amendment list -- so the statewide OUBCC rule governs directly: "R908.3.1.1. Roof re-cover. A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)).
City of Claremore - Community Development Services, Permits & Inspections (City of Claremore, Oklahoma)
Oklahoma's operative residential code is the OUBCC 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (effective 9-14-22), whose amended R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover states: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: (1) Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing[;] (2) Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile[;] (3) Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering[; and] (4) Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles[,] additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." Condition 4 -- added by the OUBCC amendment -- is a de facto one-layer cap on asphalt-shingle re-roofs statewide. The joint City of Claremore-Rogers County Metropolitan Zoning Ordinance, Appendix G (adopts the IRC 2009 edition "or the latest revision thereof adopted by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission" -- currently the 2018 edition per the county's own FAQ), does not amend R908.3.1.1, so this state-amended rule stands unmodified for Claremore.
City of Del City - Community Development Department (Permits & Inspections) (City of Del City, Oklahoma)
Del City's own Code of Ordinances Sec. 5-21 (Ord. No. 1388, Sec. 2, 2-6-17, all seven numbered amendment items) does not amend IRC Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies -- no R908 provision appears anywhere in its amendment list -- so the OUBCC's 2015 IRC Permanent Rule (Title 748, Chapter 20, Subchapter 5, Sec. 748:20-5-11.1(3) -- the statewide minimum code for residential construction pursuant to 59 O.S. Sec. 1000.23 that governs Del City's own 2015 IRC vintage, as distinct from the 2018 IRC Permanent Rule that governs Oklahoma jurisdictions on the 2018 edition) governs directly: "R908.3.1.1. Roof re-cover. A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: (A) Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (B) Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. (C) Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (D) Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted."
City of Edmond Department of Building & Safety (City of Edmond, Oklahoma)
"If my shingle manufacturer does not allow my existing (1x8, 1x10 etc.) deck to be used as a base for their product, do I have to remove the old decking or can new OSB or plywood sheathing be installed[?] The 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) does not require you to remove the existing deck material prior to installation of a new sheathing substrate except in very unusual circumstances where the existing roof framing is inadequate. Roof replacements do require the removal of all existing layers of roof covering (shingles)." (City of Edmond Department of Building & Safety, Storm/Re-Roof Information FAQ). Confirms that a roof replacement requires full removal of the existing shingle layer(s) -- no shingle-over-shingle recover.
City of Jenks - Building Inspections Department (City of Jenks, Oklahoma)
Jenks Code of Ordinances Sec. 4-1-1(A) "Adoption of Codes" adopts the 2018 IRC "as amended and modified by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission (OUBCC) as if fully set out at length herein," with no Jenks-specific amendment to IRC Chapter 9 anywhere in Article 1 (Building Code and Regulations) -- confirmed by reading Sec. 4-1-1 through 4-1-8 in full; none addresses roofing/recover. The governing text is therefore the OUBCC's own statewide R908.3.1.1: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)).
City of Midwest City - Permits & Building Inspections Division (City of Midwest City, Oklahoma)
Midwest City Code of Ordinances Sec. 9-7 ("Code amended--International Residential Code") (Ord. No. 3560, Sec. 1, 4-23-24; Ord. No. 3590, Sec. 1, 3-25-25; Ord. No. 3591, Sec. 2, 3-25-25), read in full, amends only administrative/permit provisions of the adopted 2018 IRC (102.4.1, 104.1, 104.2, 105.10, 107.3.1, 108.2, 109.4, 110.0, 112.1) -- no R908 provision of any kind appears in the amendment list -- so the statewide OUBCC rule governs directly: "R908.3.1.1. Roof re-cover. A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)).
City of Moore - Building Permits & Inspections (Community Development Department) (City of Moore, Oklahoma)
City of Moore Municipal Code Sec. 5-204 (Adoption of the International Residential Code; Ord. No. 1039.23, 12-18-2023, and predecessor amending ordinances back to 1990), read in full, does not amend Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) of the adopted 2018 IRC beyond its one Chapter 9 amendment to R905.1.2 (ice barriers) -- no R908 provision appears anywhere in its amendment list. The operative text for roof re-cover is therefore the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission's 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)), which amends R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover to read: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted."
City of Mustang - Community Development Department (City of Mustang, Oklahoma)
City of Mustang Ordinance No. 1269 (Sec. 18-33.B, 35 numbered amendment items) does not amend Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) of the adopted 2018 IRC -- none of its 35 items touch R905 or R908. The operative text is therefore the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission's 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)), which amends R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover to read: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted."
City of Norman Development Services Division (City of Norman, Oklahoma)
"How many layers of asphalt shingles can we have installed on the roof? Answer: 1 (one). (R908.3.1.1 and OUBCC Amendment) Roof re-cover not allowed. A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. [existing roof covering is] water soaked or deteriorated[.] 2. [existing covering is] slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile[.] 3. [existing roof has] two or more applications [of any roof covering][.] 4. [existing roof has] one or more application of asphalt shingles[;] additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." (City of Norman "Common Questions for Roofing with Asphalt Shingles," Development Services Division / Building Permits and Inspections). Only one layer of asphalt shingles is allowed; recover over an existing shingle layer is prohibited and full tear-off is required.
City of Oklahoma City - Development Services Department (City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
"Section R908.3.1.1 is amended to read as follows: R908.3.1.1. Roof re-cover. A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." (City of Oklahoma City 2018 IRC Amendments, State Amendments Included, Ch. 9 Roof Assemblies, p.24 of 37). Consistent with the City's own re-roofing checklist: "Q8. Can I shingle over the existing layer of asphalt singles? No, only one layer is permitted."
City of Sand Springs - Neighborhood Services Department (City of Sand Springs, Oklahoma)
Oklahoma's operative residential code is the OUBCC 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (effective 9-14-22), whose amended R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover states: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... (4) Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles[,] additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted" -- a de facto one-layer cap on asphalt-shingle re-roofs statewide (also barred: water-soaked/ deteriorated existing roofs, slate/clay/cement/asbestos-cement tile, or two or more applications of any covering type). The City's own Title 15 Sec. 15.24.010 adopts the IRC "as adopted and amended by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission (OUBCC)" and, read in full, amends only Section P3008.1 (sewage backflow/backwater valves) -- it does not touch R908.3.1.1, so the state-amended rule stands unmodified for Sand Springs. This matches the city's own roofing FAQ, which separately states in plainer language: "Building codes only allow one layer of shingles above the decking. This means old roofing materials must to be removed before new roofing materials are installed."
City of Sapulpa - Building Inspections Office (City of Sapulpa, Oklahoma)
Oklahoma's operative residential code is the OUBCC 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (effective 9-14-22), whose amended R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover states: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... (4) Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles[,] additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted" -- a de facto one-layer cap on asphalt-shingle re-roofs statewide (also barred: water-soaked/ deteriorated existing roofs, slate/clay/cement/asbestos-cement tile, or two or more applications of any covering type). The City's own Code of Ordinances Sec. 5-101.B adopts the Residential Building Code "as adopted and amended by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission (OUBCC)," with codification occurring automatically on OUBCC publication, and Part 5 Chapter 1, read in full, contains no local amendment to R908.3.1.1 -- so the state-amended rule stands unmodified for Sapulpa. This matches the city's own roofing FAQ, which separately states in plainer language: "Building codes only allow one layer of shingles above the decking."
City of Shawnee Building Inspections Division (City of Shawnee, Oklahoma)
City of Shawnee Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-462 amends only R101.1, Table R301.2(1), and P2603.5.1 of the adopted 2018 IRC -- it does not touch Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies). The operative text is therefore the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission's 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)), which amends R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover to read: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted."
City of Tulsa Development Services Department - Permit Center (City of Tulsa, Oklahoma)
"R908.3.1.1. Roof re-cover - Amendatory. A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." Net effect: full tear-off is required once a roof already carries two layers of any covering, or already carries one layer of asphalt shingles (a second asphalt layer is barred), or the existing covering is water-soaked/ deteriorated, or is slate/clay/cement/asbestos-cement tile.
City of Yukon - Development Services (City of Yukon, Oklahoma)
City of Yukon Ordinance No. 1414 (Sec. 204-138, Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies, adopted Aug. 18, 2020) amends R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover to read: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted."
Oklahoma County Planning Commission (Oklahoma County, Oklahoma)
Resolution No. 2024-5421 (eff. 1-1-2025) adopts, for unincorporated Oklahoma County, "the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) as modified by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission (OUBCC) with the 2022 Oklahoma Amendments"; its own 3-page text and addendums do not further amend any roofing section, so the OUBCC's statewide text controls. The OUBCC 2018 IRC Permanent Rule amends Section R908.3.1.1 Roof recover to read: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: (1) the existing roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated; (2) the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile; (3) the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering; (4) the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles -- additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." In effect, only one layer of asphalt shingles is allowed and a full tear-off is required before any re-cover.
Rogers County Building Safety & Inspection Services (Planning Commission) (Rogers County, Oklahoma)
Oklahoma's operative residential code is the OUBCC 2018 IRC Permanent Rule (effective 9-14-22), whose amended R908.3.1.1 Roof re-cover states: "A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: (1) Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing[;] (2) Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile[;] (3) Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering[; and] (4) Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles[,] additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." Condition 4 -- added by the OUBCC amendment -- is a de facto one-layer cap on asphalt-shingle re-roofs statewide. The joint City of Claremore-Rogers County Metropolitan Zoning Ordinance, Appendix G (adopts the IRC 2009 edition "or the latest revision thereof adopted by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission" -- currently the 2018 edition per the county's own FAQ), read in full, does not amend R908.3.1.1, so this state-amended rule stands unmodified for unincorporated Rogers County.
Tulsa County Inspections Department (Tulsa County, Oklahoma)
Tulsa County has no locally codified amendment to IRC R908 (confirmed by a prior wave's read of the county's inspections/building PDFs, and by this wave's read of the state rule -- no county-specific building-code ordinance amending Chapter 9 was located), so the applicable rule is the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission's own statewide R908.3.1.1, in force as the mandatory minimum "for residential building construction for one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses in Oklahoma pursuant to 59 O.S. Sec. 1000.23," which "may only be amended or altered by other jurisdictions pursuant to Oklahoma law" (OAC 748:20-6-2): "R908.3.1.1. Roof re-cover. A roof re-cover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. Where the existing roof has one or more application of asphalt shingles additional applications of asphalt shingles shall not be permitted." (OAC 748:20-6-14(13)).
No overlay — full tear-off required — South Dakota (1)
No overlay — full tear-off required — Texas (2)
City of Amarillo Department of Building Safety (City of Amarillo, Texas)
"New roof coverings cannot be installed without removing existing layers, with an exception for complete and separate metal roofing systems." (City of Amarillo Department of Building Safety, "Requirements for Roof Permits" memo.) In effect: a full tear-off is required before any re-cover in Amarillo, except for a standalone metal roofing system installed as its own separate assembly.
City of Mansfield - Building Safety Department (City of Mansfield, Texas)
"Shingles must be completely removed before the installation of new shingles." (City of Mansfield FAQ, "Do I need a permit to re-roof?") -- full tear-off is required on every re-roof; the city's local IRC amendments do not add a separate R908 recover/overlay provision, so this FAQ statement is the operative local rule.
No overlay — full tear-off required — Wyoming (1)
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Colorado (62)
Arapahoe County - Building Division (Arapahoe County, Colorado (unincorporated))
"The installation of a new roof covering over an existing layer shall be permitted per the limitations of IRC Section R908.3.1. As per IRC Section 908.3.1.1, a roof re-cover shall not be permitted where the existing roof has two or more applications of any roof covering, or where the existing layers must be removed prior to new roof installation. Any water damaged or rotted decking must be replaced and inspected prior to concealment."
Chaffee County Building Safety Department (Chaffee County, Colorado)
Not separately amended by Chaffee County. Ordinance 2023-02, Exhibit B (Amendments to the 2021 IRC), Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) amendment section was read in full and contains only one addition, R903.2.3 (roof-jack/vent penetration setback from valleys) -- it does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2021 IRC roof-recover/layer- limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text itself is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City and County of Broomfield - Building Division (City and County of Broomfield, Colorado)
"Roof recover not allowed: Existing layers must be removed if soaked or deteriorated, wood shake/slate/tile, or two or more layers, to the roof deck. Exception: One asphalt overlay is allowed if adequate by code and or manufacturer." (Building Division Re-Roofing Guideline Policy, effective 4/15/2026, implementing the 2024 IBC/IRC; this is administrative policy, not text amended directly into B.M.C. Chapter 15-05.)
City and County of Denver - Community Planning and Development (City and County of Denver, Colorado)
"Existing roofs must be removed to deck and replaced where two or more layers of any roof covering exist" (Roofing Guide Sec. 3.A). The companion Roofing Checklist item #3 (IRC R908.3.1.1(3)/R908.3, IBC 1511.3.1.1/1512.2) states: "Existing roof covering must be removed down to deck unless re-covering a single layer" -- a roof recover is permitted only over one existing layer; two or more layers force full tear-off.
City of Alamosa - Building Department (City of Alamosa, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the City of Alamosa. The City adopts the 2015 IRC by reference (Alamosa Municipal Code § 4-21, 26 numbered modifications reviewed in full) and the modification list does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2015 IRC roof-recover/layer-limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text itself is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck. The record's adopted_code names the 2018 I-Codes while this field's own text names the 2015 IRC. That disagreement is recorded rather than resolved, and it does not reach this field: the 2015 and 2018 editions carry an identical Section R908.3.1.1, so the layer answer is the same under either reading.
City of Arvada - Building Division (City of Arvada, Colorado)
"The installation of a new roof covering over an existing roof covering shall be permitted per section R908.3.1 of the 2018 IRC" -- Arvada allows recover; no explicit maximum layer count beyond the underlying R908.3.1 recover conditions is stated on this page. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Cherry Hills Village Building Department (City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado)
The City's "Specific Roofing Requirements" guide, under "Reroofing vs. Recovering," quotes IRC Section R907.3: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." -- i.e. a maximum of one existing roof-covering layer before a recover is disallowed and tear-off is required.
City of Cortez - Building Division (City of Cortez, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the City of Cortez. Ordinance No. 1249, Series 2018, Section 2 (items a through n), the full textually exhaustive amendment list to the 2015 IRC, does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2015 IRC roof-recover/layer- limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text itself is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2015 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof re-cover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Cripple Creek Building Department (City of Cripple Creek, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the City of Cripple Creek. Municipal Code § 18-4-20, "Amendments" to the 2018 IRC, was read in full and is textually exhaustive -- Section 101.1 (Title) and Table R301.2(1) only -- and does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2018 IRC roof-recover/layer-limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text itself is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Dacono - Community Development Department (Building Division) (City of Dacono, Colorado)
"How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation." R908.3 Roof Replacement further requires full removal of existing roof coverings down to the roof deck where: (1) the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or deteriorated beyond use as a base for additional roofing; (2) the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile; or (3) the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering.
City of Durango - Building Division (City of Durango, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the City of Durango. The City adopts the 2024 IRC by reference (§ 6-140, Ord. No. O-2025-0051) and its § 6-144 amendment list, read start to finish, does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2024 IRC roof-recover/layer-limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Edgewater Building Division (City of Edgewater, Colorado)
Edgewater has adopted the 2021 IRC by reference, Municipal Code Section 18-3-10, and its amendment list, Section 18-3-30, does not touch Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, or Section R908, so the base 2021 IRC reroofing provision governs unamended: Section R908.3.1.1 bars a roof recover where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering, so no more than two total layers may exist on a re-covered roof.
City of Englewood - Building Division (City of Englewood, Colorado)
"HOW MANY LAYERS OF ROOFING ARE ALLOWED? A maximum of two layers are allowed." (Residential Re-Roofing Guidelines FAQ.)
City of Fort Morgan Building Department (City of Fort Morgan, Colorado)
The City's "Roofing Requirements" document (effective July 1, 2026, current 2024 IRC/IBC adoption per Ordinance No. 1337) quotes R908.4 Roof re-cover in full: installation of a new roof covering over an existing roof covering is permitted only where the new covering is installed per the manufacturer's approved instructions; where a complete, separate roofing system (e.g. standing-seam metal) transmits roof loads directly to the structure without relying on the existing roof for support; where metal panel, metal shingle, or concrete/clay tile is installed over existing wood shake per R908.4.1; or where a new protective roof coating is applied over an existing protective coating, metal panel, metal shingle, or mineral foam roofing system. Roofs not meeting one of these conditions require tear-off. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Fruita - Building Division (City of Fruita, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the City of Fruita. Fruita Municipal Code § 15.22.020(k) item 12 exempts "Roof recover of buildings regulated by this code that do not exceed Limits of Section R908.4 and 908.4.1" from permit -- cross-referencing the base 2024 IRC recover-limit sections without redefining them, confirming R907 (Reroofing) and R908 (Roof Replacement) are not otherwise amended in the § 15.22.020 list; the base IRC layer-limit provisions govern as adopted (section text behind the ICC paywall, not restated here). Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Holyoke - Building Department (City of Holyoke, Colorado)
Holyoke has adopted the 2018 IRC by reference, Municipal Code Section 15.08.010, and its own Modifications section, Section 15.08.020, does not amend Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, or Section R908, so the base 2018 IRC reroofing provision governs unamended: Section R908.3.1.1 bars a roof recover where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering, so no more than two total layers may exist on a re-covered roof.
City of Lafayette - Building Division (City of Lafayette, Colorado)
Asphalt roofs shall have no more than two (2) layers.
City of Trinidad - Building Department (City of Trinidad, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the City of Trinidad. Municipal Code § 5-2 adopts the 2024 IRC by reference and, read in full (a short, self-contained section), does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2024 IRC roof-recover/layer-limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Walsenburg - Building Department (City of Walsenburg, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the City of Walsenburg. The City's Sec. 18-9-30 amendment list to the 2021 IRC (2 items: penalties, and Table N1102.1.3 energy amendments with 3 deletions -- N1102.4.1.2, N1103.3.5, R313.2) does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2021 IRC roof-recover/layer-limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Westminster - Community Development (City of Westminster, Colorado)
"A roof recovering is permitted in accordance with IRC 908.3.1 and per manufacturer's instructions." (Residential Re-roofing Guide, "based on the 2021 International Residential Code as amended by the City of Westminster.") Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Grand County Building Division - Community Development (Grand County, Colorado (unincorporated))
The Grand County Department of Community Development's "Grand County Roofing Guidelines" handout, signed by the roofing contractor on every Grand County roofing permit, states: "If the project is a re-roof where the old roofing will not be removed, a maximum of two layers of roofing will be allowed. (One layer old, one layer new) Ice and water shield is not required in these cases." I.e. a maximum of two total layers (one existing plus one new) for overlay re-roofs without tear-off.
Huerfano County Land Use and Building Department (Huerfano County, Colorado)
Huerfano County adopts the 2021 IRC by County Resolution 23-25. Read in full, Section 7's complete list of amendments, insertions, attachments and deletions touches permit administration, Chapter 3's climatic-design table, one fire-resistance footnote for airport hangars, ICF construction, and the county's energy-code (IECC) tables — it contains no amendment anywhere to Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, of the IRC. So the base 2021 IRC's own provisions on the number of roof-covering layers permitted before tear-off apply unmodified in unincorporated Huerfano County. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Mesa County Building Department (Mesa County, Colorado)
The Building Department's Reroof Policy (effective September 2025) states a permit is always required once two or more layers already exist on a roof, and the companion Roof Repair versus Replacement policy (Chief Building Official, 9/9/2025) independently lists "anytime the existing roof has 2 or more layers" as a mandatory-replacement trigger rather than a repair or recover. Mesa County's building-code amendment ordinance (008(D), Part 8, adding IRC item R105.2(12)) separately exempts roof recover from the permit requirement only where it does not exceed the limits of base IRC Sections R908.4 and R908.4.1; the ordinance text itself does not restate those base-code layer limits, so the base IRC provisions on the number of roof-covering layers govern that permit-exemption boundary.
Ouray County Land Use Department - Building (Ouray County, Colorado)
Ouray County Resolution No. 2021-049, Exhibit A, contains no amendment reaching IRC Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, so the base 2018 International Residential Code governs. Section R908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, provides: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." A third layer therefore requires full tear-off replacement under Section R908.3.
Pueblo County Building Division (Unincorporated Pueblo County, Colorado)
Pueblo County's amendment chapter for the adopted 2021 IRC (Pueblo County Code 15.08.120, read in full, items (a) through (r)) does not touch Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies), so the base code's roof-covering replacement provisions apply unmodified in unincorporated Pueblo County. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Rio Blanco County Building Division (Rio Blanco County, Colorado)
The Roofing Permit page's "Re-covering versus replacement" section states: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof covering where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" — i.e. a maximum of two existing roof-covering layers before a recover is disallowed and full tear-off is required.
Teller County Building Division (Teller County, Colorado)
Not separately amended by Teller County. The same ascending-order, section-by-section IRC amendments list in the Teller County Building Code (effective 07/01/2023) that amends Section R903 (Weather Protection) and Section R905.1.2 (Ice barrier) does not touch Section R907 or R908 anywhere, so the base 2021 IRC roof-recover / roof-covering-layer provisions stand as adopted code. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Akron - Building Department (Town of Akron, Colorado)
The Town of Akron's Building Department page states: "Roofers can add 1 layer of regular shingles or heritage shingles over a regular 3-tab shingled roof, but NOT over a heritage shingled roof" — i.e. one additional shingle layer (2 total) is permitted over an existing 3-tab roof, while an existing heritage (architectural/dimensional) shingle roof must be torn off before re-covering.
Town of Arriba - Building Codes (Town of Arriba, Colorado)
Ordinance No. 154 amends only the ice-barrier provisions of Chapter 9 (Section R905.1.2); it does not touch Section R908, Reroofing. Under the unamended 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Because a recover is barred once two layers already exist, the maximum standing layer count under a recover is two.
Town of Bennett Building Department (Town of Bennett, Colorado)
The Town's one roof-covering amendment prohibits recovering over wood. Bennett Municipal Code Section 18-7-20(20), enacted by Ordinance No. 806-25 on November 4, 2025, amends Section R908.4.1 of the adopted 2024 International Residential Code, roof recovering over wood shingles or shakes, to read in its entirety: "The application of a new roof covering over wood shingles or shakes shall be prohibited." That is the only change the Town makes to the reroofing provisions; the general roof-replacement and roof-recover rules of Section R908.3 are adopted as published and are not amended, so the number of layers permitted over a covering other than wood shingles or shakes is governed by the model code rather than by any Bennett provision. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Berthoud - Planning and Building Department (Town of Berthoud, Colorado)
Per the Town's 2026 Roofing Regulations: "Roof recover not allowed where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (R908.3.1.1)" Tear-off clause: "All roofing material shall be removed prior to new application (except one (1) layer of asphalt shingles is allowed to have an additional layer of asphalt shingles applied)" -- i.e., a maximum of two total layers (one existing plus one new) before full tear-off is required.
Town of De Beque - Building Safety and Permitting (Town of De Beque, Colorado)
De Beque adopts the 2024 IRC unamended on roof recovering: a new roof covering may be installed over an existing one only where the existing roof is not water-soaked or deteriorated, is not slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile, and does not already carry two or more layers of any roof covering -- so at most one recover is permitted before a full tear-off replacement is required. Section R908.4 / R908.4.1, 2024 International Residential Code, confirmed unamended against the Town's own 40-item Section 12.22.020 amendment list.
Town of Firestone - Building Division (Town of Firestone, Colorado)
"R908.3.1.1 Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any roof covering, all old material must be removed. Roof recover is not allowed." Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Fraser Building Department (Town of Fraser, Colorado)
Fraser Municipal Code § 18-1-40 item (60) amends R907.3: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has more than one application of any type of roof covering." -- i.e. a maximum of one existing layer before full tear-off is required.
Town of Haxtun Building Department (Town of Haxtun, Colorado)
Haxtun adopted the 2018 International Residential Code by reference at section 150.02(A) (Ordinance 2025-1, passed October 6, 2025) and its twenty-two itemized amendments do not touch Chapter 9. Under IRC section R908.3.1.1, a roof recover is not permitted "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," among other conditions, so a third layer requires full tear-off rather than recover.
Town of Hooper - Building Permits (Town of Hooper, Colorado)
The Town adopts the 2018 IRC by reference (Ordinance No. 1-2023). Titles III and IV of the Town's Municipal Code -- where local building-code provisions would sit -- are both marked "(RESERVED)" and contain no text anywhere in the 207-page code, so no local amendment touches Chapter 9 and the base IRC's roof-covering recovering-versus-replacement layer limit applies unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Hudson - Building Department (Town of Hudson, Colorado)
The Town's 2021-22 Roofing Regulations handout: "Tear-off: All roofing material shall be removed prior to new application (except one (1) layer of asphalt shingles is allowed to have an additional layer of asphalt shingles applied)." Also: "Roof recover not allowed where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (R908.3.1.1)"
Town of Hugo (Building Permits via Town Hall) (Town of Hugo, Colorado)
Hugo's Land Development Code adopts by reference "without amending any of their technical provisions," and the Town's own instruments name both the 2006 and the 2018 International Residential Code, an ambiguity this record does not resolve. Both candidate editions agree on this point. The 2006 IRC Section R907.3, Re-covering versus replacement, provides: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, provides the same trigger: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Under either edition, a third layer requires full tear-off.
Town of Ignacio Planning Department (Building Permits) (Town of Ignacio, Colorado)
The Town adopted the 2018 IRC without amending Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies. Section R908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, provides: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated... 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Because a recover is barred once two layers already exist, the maximum standing layer count under a recover is two.
Town of Kersey Building Inspection Department (Town of Kersey, Colorado)
The "2024 IRC Residential Re-roofing" guide linked from the Town's Building Permit page states, in FAQ form: "How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation." Note on provenance: that guide is a SAFEbuilt handout distributed unchanged to multiple client towns rather than a Kersey-specific instrument, so it is reported here only for a rule that is not town-specific - a two-layer maximum is the base IRC R908.3.1.1 position, which Kersey's codified amendments do not alter. Kersey's own climatic values are taken from its codified Table R301.2(1) instead (see wind_design_criteria and ice_water_shield_required).
Town of La Veta Building Department (Town of La Veta, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the Town of La Veta. Municipal Code 15.04.010 / 15.08.010 adopt the 2021 IRC by reference, and Title 15, read in full, contains no amendment to Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base 2021 IRC roof-recover/layer-limit provisions govern as adopted; the section text is behind the ICC paywall and not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Lake City - Building Permits (Hinsdale County Building Department) (Town of Lake City, Colorado)
The Town adopts the 2015 International Residential Code at Code of Ordinances Sec. 5-19(b), and its complete schedule of amendments (Sec. 5-118, Table A) does not amend Section R908. The unamended 2015 IRC Section R908.3.1.1, Roof re-cover not allowed, provides: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Section R908.3, Roof replacement, adds that "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," excepting an adhered ice barrier membrane, which may remain and be covered with an additional layer. A third layer therefore requires full tear-off.
Town of Meeker - Community Development Department (Town of Meeker, Colorado)
The 2003 International Residential Code, Section R907.3, Recovering versus replacement, requires removal of the existing roof covering before installing a new one where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering (among other conditions -- water-soaked or deteriorated coverings, or existing wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). Exceptions allow complete separate roofing systems (e.g. standing-seam metal) not relying on the existing roof for support, and metal panel, metal shingle, concrete or clay tile installed over an existing wood shake roof under Section R907.4. No Town of Meeker amendment at Section 15.5.102 touches Chapter 9.
Town of Milliken (permits via SAFEbuilt) (Town of Milliken, Colorado)
The Town of Milliken sets no local limit on the number of roof covering layers. Its residential amendment list at Municipal Code Section 18-10-20 was read in full and makes no amendment to IRC Section R907, the reroofing provisions, so the roof-recover and roof- replacement rules of the adopted 2024 International Residential Code apply as published. The Town does amend the roof-covering provisions elsewhere: IRC Section R905.2.4 is amended to require Class 4 impact- resistant asphalt shingles, which governs what covering may be installed rather than how many layers may remain beneath it. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Mountain Village - Building Division (Town of Mountain Village, Colorado)
Not separately amended by the Town of Mountain Village. The Town's §17.7.11.B 31-item exhaustive amendment list to the 2018 IRC does not touch Section R907 (Reroofing) or R908 (Roof Replacement), so the base IRC roof-recover/layer-limit provisions govern as adopted (section text behind the ICC paywall, not restated here). As with drip_edge_required, this reflects the Town's own hosted pre-2025-05-ordinance document; the current codified text is unreachable (Cloudflare-walled). Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Nunn - Building/Planning (Town of Nunn, Colorado)
The Town's "2024-IRC Re-Roof-Guide," published by SAFEbuilt, Inc. (the Town's contracted building/inspection provider) and hosted on the Town's Building/Planning page, quotes "SECTION R908: REROOFING" as follows: "R908.3 Roof Replacement. Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck: (Some exceptions may apply to your situation) ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The same guide's FAQ states: "How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation."
Town of Olathe - Building Department (Town of Olathe, Colorado)
Town of Olathe Title III, Chapter 1's amendment list reaches no amendment to IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) in either candidate edition of the Town's base code, so the base code's own reroofing section governs either way. The 2006 IRC's Section R907.3 states: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The 2018 IRC's renumbered equivalent, Section R908.3.1.1, states the same rule: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Both editions agree, so at most one recover is permitted before a full tear-off replacement is required.
Town of Orchard City - Building Department (Town of Orchard City, Colorado)
Orchard City adopts the 2018 IRC unamended on roof recovering: a new roof covering may be installed over an existing one only where the existing roof is not water-soaked or deteriorated, is not slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile, and does not already carry two or more layers of any roof covering -- so at most one recover is permitted before a full tear-off replacement is required. The Town's own local amendment to this article (Section 18-12.4-20) touches only the attic- ventilation subsection and does not amend this rule.
Town of Paonia - Building Department (Town of Paonia, Colorado)
Paonia Municipal Code § 18-2-30(o) amends IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof cover not allowed) item #3 to read: "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering unless the third covering is metal panels and appropriate length fasteners are used" - i.e. a maximum of two existing roof-covering layers before a recover is disallowed and tear-off is required, with an exception permitting a third layer specifically for metal panel roofing installed with appropriate length fasteners.
Town of Parachute - Building & Permitting (Town of Parachute, Colorado)
The Town's amendment to IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Ordinance No. 793-2021, Exhibit A, Chapter 13.60.020, item Z) states: "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering unless the third covering is metal panels and appropriate length fasteners are used." In effect, a roof that already carries two layers of any covering may not receive a third recover layer unless that new layer is metal panels installed with appropriate-length fasteners; otherwise the existing covering must be removed down to the deck before reroofing.
Town of Pierce Building Permit Department (Town of Pierce, Colorado)
The "2018 IRC Re-Roof Guide" published by SAFEbuilt and linked from the Town's Building Permits page states, in FAQ form: "How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation."
Town of Platteville - Building Department (SAFEbuilt) (Town of Platteville, Colorado)
The town's SAFEbuilt Residential Asphalt Shingle Re-Roofing Requirements handout: "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering all old material must be removed." Platteville Code of Ordinances § 18-10-30's current, exhaustive 2024-IRC amendment list does not separately amend R907/R908.
Town of Ridgway - Building Department (Town of Ridgway, Colorado)
Ridgway Municipal Code § 6-1-3(A)(19) amends IRC Section R908.3.1.1 "Roof recover not allowed," item #3, to read: "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering unless the third covering is metal panels and appropriate length fasteners are used" — i.e. a maximum of two existing roof-covering layers before a recover is disallowed and tear-off is required, with an exception permitting a third layer specifically for metal panel roofing installed with appropriate length fasteners.
Town of Severance Building Department (Town of Severance, Colorado)
The Town's 2024-IRC Residential Re-Roof Guide (SAFEbuilt, 1.1.2026): "How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation." The same guide's "SECTION R908: REROOFING" text requires full removal of existing layers down to the roof deck where the existing roof/covering is water-soaked or deteriorated beyond use as a base, is wood shake/slate/clay/cement/asbestos-cement tile, or already has two or more applications of any roof covering.
Town of Silt - Community Development Department (Town of Silt, Colorado)
The Town of Silt sets no local limit on the number of roof covering layers. Its Title 15 amendment lists were read in full and make no amendment to the reroofing provisions of the adopted residential code, which therefore apply as published. The only roofing content in the local amendments is the completed Table R301.2(1) and the standard footnote explaining its ice-barrier column. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck. Silt's codified text names the residential edition inconsistently -- Section 15.04.010's headings say 2015 IRC while its operative sentence says 2018 IRC. Both branches are read rather than adjudicated: the 2015 and 2018 editions carry an identical Section R908.3.1.1, so the unresolved edition cannot change the layer answer.
Town of Telluride Building Department (Town of Telluride, Colorado)
Ordinance 1620's full 2024 IRC amendment list (Sec. 15-2-30, 19 numbered items, read in full) contains no amendment to Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, so the base 2024 IRC provisions on the number of roof-covering layers apply unmodified in Telluride. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Timnath - Building Services (Town of Timnath, Colorado)
"How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation." Also, Section R908.3 Roof Replacement requires full removal of existing layers where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," among other tear-off triggers (water-soaked or deteriorated decking; existing wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile).
Town of Wellington - Building and Planning Department (Town of Wellington, Colorado)
The Town's Residential Re-roofing handout ("2021 Roofing Regulations"): "Roof Replacement: Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck R908.3 Exception: Existing Ice barrier to remain in place with addition of an additional new layer. Maximum two layers of asphalt roof covering." The same handout's FAQ page restates: "How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation." Wellington Municipal Code § 18-2-30's current, exhaustive 2024-IRC amendment list does not separately amend R908, so this practice guidance is not contradicted by the current code.
Town of Wiggins Building Department (Town of Wiggins, Colorado)
Per the Town of Wiggins Building Department's "ROOF REGULATIONS" sheet: "Roof recovery is not allowed where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (R908.3.1.1)." A roof-over is permitted only where a single existing layer of roof covering is present; two or more existing layers require a full tear-off before a new roof covering may be applied.
Town of Windsor - Building Department (Town of Windsor, Colorado)
"How many layers of roofing are allowed? No more than two (2) layers are allowed upon completion of installation." Section R908.3 Roof Replacement requires full tear-off to the deck where, among other triggers, "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering."
Town of Winter Park Building Division (Town of Winter Park, Colorado)
One existing layer may be recovered; two or more must come off. Winter Park amends the reroofing provision to read: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more than one application of any type of roof covering." The third condition is the operative one for an ordinary asphalt reroof.
Town of Yampa - Building Department (Town of Yampa, Colorado)
The 2003 International Residential Code, Section R907.3, Recovering versus replacement, requires removal of the existing roof covering before a new one is installed if the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering (among other conditions -- water-soaked or deteriorated coverings, or existing wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). Exceptions allow complete separate roofing systems (e.g. standing-seam metal) that do not rely on the existing roof for support, and metal panel, metal shingle, concrete or clay tile installed over an existing wood shake roof under Section R907.4. No Town of Yampa amendment touches Chapter 9.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Georgia (3)
City of Alpharetta, Georgia - Community Development Department, Building Division (City of Alpharetta, Georgia)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET -- applies in Alpharetta as everywhere else in Georgia. IRC Section R908 (Reroofing), which carries the roof-recover restrictions, is not amended by the Georgia State Amendments packet to the 2024 IRC, so the base IRC reroofing limits apply as adopted: a roof recover (overlay) is barred where the existing roof already has two or more applications of any type of roof covering, where the existing roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base, and over existing wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile -- in which cases the existing covering must be removed down to the deck. The net effect is a two-layer ceiling, with one overlay permitted over one sound existing layer. The section body itself is behind the ICC paywall and is not restated verbatim here; the sourced finding is the absence of any Georgia amendment to Chapter 9 / R908, established by reading the DCA amendment packet page-by-page and cross-checking the UpCodes Georgia 2024 IRC viewer.
City of Atlanta, Georgia - Department of City Planning, Office of Buildings (City of Atlanta, Georgia)
TWO SEPARATE LIMITS APPLY IN ATLANTA AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME NUMBER. (1) PERMIT-EXEMPTION LIMIT (city, Atlanta-specific): Atlanta Land Development Code, Appendix A, Chapter I, Section 103.4 conditions the residential re-roofing permit exemption on "shingle replacement provided that upon replacement no more than three layers of shingles remain." Three layers is therefore the ceiling for doing the work WITHOUT pulling a permit; it is a permit-administration threshold, not a statement of the technical maximum permitted by the building code. (2) TECHNICAL RE-COVER LIMIT (state/IRC-governed): the substantive roof re-covering limits are IRC Section R908 as adopted in Georgia. The Georgia Amendments packet contains no amendment to IRC Chapter 9, so the base, unamended 2024 IRC R908 re-cover provisions govern, and Atlanta's own Appendix A amendments are administrative (Sections 103/104) rather than a rewrite of Chapter 9. The verbatim operative text of R908 is behind the ICC paywall and is not restated here. Roofers should read Section 103.4's three-layer figure as governing only whether a permit is needed, and R908 as governing whether the re-cover is lawful at all. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Marietta, Georgia - Development Services / Building Inspections (City of Marietta, Georgia)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. Re-cover and roof-replacement limits in Marietta are the base, unamended 2024 IRC Section R908 provisions as adopted in Georgia: the Georgia State Amendments packet to the 2024 IRC contains no amendment to IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies, R901-R908), and no Marietta local amendment to R908 was located. Marietta therefore has no city-specific overlay/layer rule of its own - unlike, for example, the City of Atlanta, whose Land Development Code Appendix A Section 103.4 writes an explicit three-layer figure into its own permit-exemption text. The operative numeric recover limit is base ICC text, which is behind the ICC paywall and is not restated here. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Indiana (2)
Allen County Building Department (building-permit and contractor-licensing authority for the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana) (City of Fort Wayne, Allen County, Indiana)
STATE-GOVERNED, with no Fort Wayne or Allen County layer rule of its own -- and none is legally possible, because IC 22-13-2-3(c) bars a city, town or county from adopting an ordinance more stringent or more detailed than the commission's rules. The operative provision is the roof replacement / roof recover section of the 2018 IRC as incorporated by 675 IAC 14-4.4. A section-by-section review of the roughly 230 numbered Indiana amendments in the 675 IAC 14-4.4 final rule found no Indiana amendment to the roof recover/replacement sections, so Indiana adopts that base text unaltered; this is an Indiana-wide finding rather than a Fort Wayne one, and no Indiana-specific rule number should be cited for it. The literal text of the base IRC recover/replacement section is behind the ICC paywall, and Allen County publishes no re-roof handout restating it (consistent with its issuing no re-roof permit), so the numeric layer count is not restated here. A roofer needing the exact number of permitted existing layers should read 2018 IRC Section R908 as adopted by 675 IAC 14-4.4, or call ACBD at (260) 449-7131. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana - Department of Business and Neighborhood Services (BNS), Construction Services (City of Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana)
Substantively STATE-GOVERNED: Indiana adopts the 2018 IRC reroofing provisions without amendment -- a search of the roughly 230 numbered amendment sections in the 675 IAC 14-4.4 Final Rule finds no Indiana amendment to the IRC reroofing chapter -- and Indianapolis is barred from adding a stricter local layer limit by IC 22-13-2-3(c). The base IRC section text is behind the ICC paywall and is not restated here. What Indianapolis's OWN ordinance text does establish, and what a Marion County roofer actually needs, is that a single overlay over one existing layer is contemplated and is the outer bound of the no-permit owner-installed case: the Building Standards and Procedures exemption list, as reproduced in the city's Homeowner's Building Permit Guide, provides that an owner-occupant "may affix without permit a layer of replacement shingles to a single layer of existing shingles provided that a layer of shingles is not removed and provided that the total shingle-roof application is performed by the owner or contract purchaser with assistance only by non compensated volunteers." The same list separately exempts contractor-performed roof replacement so long as there is no "change in type of roof covering (e.g., tile roofing replacing asphalt shingles) that would increase the dead load on the structure" -- i.e. added dead load from stacked or heavier coverings is the concern the city polices at the permit counter. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Iowa (13)
City of Ankeny, Iowa - Development Services / Building Division (City of Ankeny, Iowa)
The City of Ankeny's own Building Official's signed "Roof/re-roof compliance" letter, listing 2024 IRC sections applicable to asphalt shingle roofing under Ordinance 2220/Chapter 184, cites "R908.3.1.1 Roof recovering not allowed - where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering (tear-off required)." In practice this means a roof that already carries two or more layers of roof covering may not be recovered with a third layer and must be torn off first.
City of Bettendorf, Iowa - Building Division (City of Bettendorf, Scott County, Iowa)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Bettendorf adopts the 2021 International Residential Code in full at City Code section 10-3-1, and the building code chapter contains no residential amendment section at all: sections 10-3-5, 10-3-6 and 10-3-7 are reserved, and the single amendment section, 10-3-3, is headed "amendments to International Building Code." Measured across the chapter there is no amendment to section R908 or to any part of the roof assemblies chapter of the residential code. The adopted text therefore governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile.
City of Cedar Falls, Iowa - Inspection Services Division (City of Cedar Falls, Black Hawk County, Iowa)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Cedar Falls adopts the 2021 International Residential Code at section 7-19 of its Code of Ordinances, and the city amendment article at section 7-20 was read in full and does not touch the reroofing provisions: it contains no amendment to any section of the roof assemblies chapter and no mention of roof coverings, underlayment or ice barriers. The adopted code text therefore governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 of that code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile.
City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa - Building Services Department (City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa)
CITY-SPECIFIC. A maximum of two (2) layers of roof covering may exist on a roof in Cedar Rapids. Per City of Cedar Rapids Building Services guidance: "A maximum of two (2) layers of shingles may be on a roof. If two (2) layers already exist on the roof, they must be torn off before a new layer can be installed." The city's roofing permit correspondingly does not authorize installation of a new roof covering over more than two existing roof coverings, or over unsound or rotted sheathing. In practice this permits a single overlay over one existing layer; a full tear-off to the deck is required once two layers are present.
City of Davenport, Iowa - Building and Land Development (Building Division) (City of Davenport, Iowa)
Davenport adopts the 2021 IRC by reference at Davenport Municipal Code Sec. 15.12.030. Its full amending chapter, Sec. 15.12.040 through Sec. 15.12.054 (read in full), amends only the International Building Code (Secs. 15.12.040-15.12.046) and IRC Chapters 1, 3 and 4 (Secs. 15.12.050-15.12.054, most recently amended by Ordinance No. 2024-465, adopted 11-13-2024). No section of Chapter 15.12 touches IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies), so IRC Section R908.3 applies unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Des Moines, Iowa - Development Services Department, Permit and Development Center (City of Des Moines, Iowa)
Two total applications of roof covering is the cap; a single recover (overlay) over one existing layer is allowed, subject to condition limits. The City of Des Moines Permit & Development Center handout "Residential Asphalt Shingle Requirements" prohibits a roof recover in three cases: where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing; where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile; and where the existing roof has two (2) or more applications of any type of roof covering. The third condition is the operative layer cap -- once two applications of roof covering are present, complete tear-off is required and no further recover is permitted.
City of Dubuque, Iowa - Inspection & Construction Services Division (City of Dubuque, Iowa)
The City of Dubuque adopts the 2021 International Residential Code by reference. Its own itemized "2021 Code Changes: Summary of Amendments" document, read in full, does not touch IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies), so the base 2021 IRC provisions on roof recovering and layer limits apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Marion, Iowa - Building Services (City of Marion, Linn County, Iowa)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Marion states this twice in its own materials rather than leaving it to the adopted code. Its building permit information page says "roofing material can consist of either asphalt shingles or metal shingles. A maximum of two layers are allowed on a roof." Its asphalt shingle roofing handout repeats the limit at requirement 9, under the heading Reroofing: "no more than two layers are allowed on a roof," and states at the top of the same document that "a maximum of 2 layers of asphalt shingles on roof is allowable." The handout also confirms that all three cases are contemplated and priced - the permit fee turns on "whether it is an overlay, a tear-off or a complete replacement of sheathing along with the roofing material" - so an overlay is a recognised option in Marion rather than a practice tolerated at the margins.
City of Ottumwa, Iowa - Building and Code Enforcement (City of Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Ottumwa adopts the 2015 International Residential Code at section 10-4 of its Code of Ordinances, and its local amendments at section 10-5 were read in full: they complete Table R301.2(1), set foundation and footing requirements, add to the permit exemption list, address garages and carports, and specify approved garage floor materials. None of them touches the reroofing provisions, so the adopted code text governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 of that code bars a roof recover where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second forces removal of the existing covering. The other two conditions bite regardless of the count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Note that this rule governs the work itself and is not affected by the fact that Ottumwa requires no permit for re-roofing.
City of Sioux City, Iowa - Permit Center (City of Sioux City, Iowa)
The City of Sioux City adopts the 2024 International Residential Code by reference at Municipal Code Sec. 20.04.030. Its full amendment section, Sec. 20.04.040 (15 numbered items, read in full), does not touch IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies), so the base 2024 IRC provisions on roof recovering and layer limits apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Urbandale, Iowa - Community Development Department (City of Urbandale, Polk and Dallas Counties, Iowa)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Urbandale adopts the 2018 International Residential Code at Municipal Code section 150.02 and its residential amendment list at section 150.03 was read in full, all thirty-four numbered items. None of them touches the reroofing provisions: measured across the whole of Municipal Code Chapter 150 there is no amendment to section R908 or to any part of the roof assemblies chapter. The adopted code text therefore governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal of the existing covering. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile.
Linn County, Iowa - Building Permits & Inspections (Linn County, Iowa)
Linn County adopts the 2024 International Residential Code by reference at Code of Ordinances Sec. 105-16. Its full amendment section, Sec. 105-17 (26 numbered items, read in full), does not touch IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies), so the base 2024 IRC provisions on roof recovering and layer limits apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Polk County, Iowa - Public Works, Building Services (Polk County, Iowa)
Polk County adopts the 2021 International Residential Code by reference at Construction Code Sec. 20.2.4. Its amendment list there (39 numbered items, read in full) does not touch IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies), so the base 2021 IRC provisions on roof recovering and layer limits apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Kansas (3)
City of Olathe - Building Codes Division (City of Olathe, Kansas)
"Roof Recovering Not Allowed - A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur. R908.3.1.1: Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." (City of Olathe official "Roofing" reroof-code summary, citing IRC R908.3.1.1 -- not separately amended by Olathe Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, so this reflects the base 2018 IRC text as applied in Olathe. Note: unlike neighboring Johnson County's amended R908.3.1.1, Olathe's item 2 does NOT list "asphalt shingle" or "wood shake" among the covering types that bar recover -- quoted verbatim as published.)
City of Overland Park - Building Safety Division (City of Overland Park, Kansas)
"No more than two layers of any type of covering may be placed on a roof. If two or more layers of roofing are in place, all layers must be removed before installing additional roofing." Additionally, "Adding an additional layer of roof covering is not permitted in the following conditions: Where existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. Where the existing roof covering is slate or clay. Cement or asbestos-cement tile. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roofing covering." (City of Overland Park official "Residential Building Permit Exceptions and Guidance" page, "Roofing and Re-Roofing" section, citing IRC R908.3.1.1. The odd "clay. Cement" punctuation is reproduced verbatim as published.)
City of Prairie Village - Community Development Department (City of Prairie Village, Kansas)
"New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or had deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing; or where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile; or where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane." (City of Prairie Village Codes Department official "Roofing Permits" brochure, "Code Requirements" section, applying IRC 2018 R908.3.1.1 as the basis for the city's re-roof/tear-off rule.)
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Minnesota (21)
City of Apple Valley, Minnesota - Building Inspections (City of Apple Valley, Minnesota)
Apple Valley restates the governing rule on its own Roofing page, under "Roofing Information - Asphalt Shingles": "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing the existing roof covering where any of the following conditions exist: Existing roof is water soaked or deteriorated. Existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. Existing roof has 2 or more application of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. This matches the base 2018 International Residential Code Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) as incorporated by the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, which Minnesota does not amend — Minnesota Rules chapter 1309 amends IRC Chapter 9 in only two places, part 1309.0903 (kick-out flashing) and part 1309.0905 (asphalt-shingle sheathing and the deletion of the drip-edge section), and neither touches the reroofing provisions. Apple Valley has no authority to set a different layer limit (Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 2(c)).
City of Blaine, Minnesota - Building Inspections Division (City of Blaine, Minnesota)
Blaine's own "Residential Roofing" reference handout states: "It is permitted to install roofing over one existing layer of asphalt shingles, provided the existing layer is considered a flat and adequate base." The handout also permits an existing ice-barrier membrane adhered to the roof deck to remain in place and be covered with one additional layer of ice barrier membrane, "for a maximum of two layers." The handout does not use the words "tear-off" or state a numeric cap on total shingle layers beyond the one-existing-layer overlay condition quoted above; it does state that reroofing of only portions of a roof, and replacement of independent sections without redoing the entire roof covering, is permitted.
City of Bloomington, Minnesota - Building and Inspections Division (City of Bloomington, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. Minnesota does not amend base 2018 IRC Section R908 (roof replacement/recover) -- the Chapter 1309 table of contents contains no "1309.0908" part (/rules/1309.0908/ returns HTTP 404). A Minnesota DLI consumer guidance sheet describes the operative rule in Minnesota: "Do not install new roof coverings without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Four exceptions are listed (complete/separate roofing systems like standing-seam metal; certain metal/tile-over-wood-shake installs per Section R908.4; new protective coating over existing spray polyurethane foam without tear-off; and an existing adhered ice-barrier membrane, which may remain and be covered with an additional ice-barrier layer). This is DLI (state), not Bloomington, guidance -- Bloomington has no authority to set a different layer limit. Confirmed at the city level: Bloomington's own FAQ states, verbatim: "You may go over one layer of existing asphalt shingles. Roofing over more than one layer of existing asphalt shingles is not permitted" -- consistent with the state's 2-layer (existing + new) cap.
City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota - Building Inspections Division (City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota)
Brooklyn Park's own Residential Reroofing guide, under "SHINGLE OVERLAY," states verbatim: "Overlaying shingles is allowed where the existing roof has only one application of shingles. Removal is required where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (R908.3.1 & 908.3.1.1)" -- meaning a new layer may be installed over one existing layer of shingles (two layers total), but not over two or more existing layers, and tear-off is required regardless of layer count if the existing roof is water-soaked or deteriorated.
City of Coon Rapids, Minnesota - Building Inspections Division (City of Coon Rapids, Minnesota)
The City of Coon Rapids' own "Residential Roofing" handout, citing R908.3 Roof replacement, states: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with a narrow exception where an existing adhered ice-barrier membrane may remain in place under an added layer of ice barrier membrane. The same handout, citing "Roof recover not allowed - R908.3.1.1," states a roof recover (leaving the existing covering in place) "shall not be permitted where...the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," or where the existing covering is water-soaked, deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. In effect, no more than one existing layer of roof covering may remain under a recover; a full tear-off to the deck is otherwise required.
City of Duluth, Minnesota - Construction Services & Inspections (City of Duluth, Minnesota)
Minnesota incorporates the 2018 IRC by reference as the Minnesota Residential Code (Minn. R. 1309.0010, subp. 1), which Duluth administers. Minnesota Rules chapter 1309's own part list (revisor.mn.gov) runs from part 1309.0905 (Section R905, Requirements for Roof Coverings) directly to a repealed part; no part 1309.0906, 1309.0907, or 1309.0908 exists (revisor.mn.gov returns HTTP 404 for each), so IRC Section R907 (Materials and Installation) and Section R908 (Reroofing), where a roof-covering-layer limit would sit, are not amended by the state and apply in their unamended 2018 IRC form statewide, including in Duluth. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota - Building Inspections (City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Eden Prairie has no authority to set a different layer limit — Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code.
City of Edina, Minnesota - Building Inspections Division (City of Edina, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Edina has no authority to set a different layer limit — Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code.
City of Lakeville, Minnesota - Building Inspections Division (City of Lakeville, Minnesota)
Lakeville's Residential Re-Roofing Guide states, under "GENERAL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS": "Existing roofing shall be torn off prior to installing the new roof where the existing roof has deteriorated to a point that the existing roof is not adequate as a base or there are two or more applications of any type of roof covering." In practice this limits a roof to two layers of covering before a full tear-off is required. Minnesota Rules chapter 1309's own table of parts amends IRC Chapter 9 in exactly two places (1309.0903 kick-out flashing and 1309.0905 sheathing/drip-edge) and contains no separate statewide layer-count rule, so this two-layer/tear-off standard rests on Lakeville's own guide rather than a numbered state rule.
City of Mankato, Minnesota - Building Inspections (City of Mankato, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Mankato has no authority to set a different layer limit — Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code.
City of Maple Grove, Minnesota - Building Inspection Services (City of Maple Grove, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. Minnesota does not amend base 2018 IRC Section R908 (roof replacement/recover) -- the Chapter 1309 table of contents contains no "1309.0908" part. The verbatim ICC R908 text is paywalled, but a Minnesota DLI consumer guidance sheet describes the operative rule in Minnesota: "Do not install new roof coverings without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Four exceptions are listed (complete/separate roofing systems like standing-seam metal; certain metal/tile-over-wood-shake installs per Section R908.4; new protective coating over existing spray polyurethane foam without tear-off; and an existing adhered ice-barrier membrane, which may remain and be covered with an additional ice-barrier layer). This is DLI (state), not Maple Grove, guidance -- Maple Grove has no authority to set a different layer limit. Independently corroborated by Maple Grove's own official roofing handout ("Roofing," Building Department, Rev 4/7/2021), stated even more concisely: "New roofing may be installed over an existing roof but shall be limited to a total of two layers."
City of Maplewood, Minnesota - Building Inspections (City of Maplewood, Minnesota)
Maplewood states a flat two-layer ceiling in its own roofing handout, under the heading "REROOFING": "New roofing may be installed over an existing roof but shall be limited to a total of two layers. Existing flashing in good condition may be reinstalled. Any sheathing that is replaced must be installed and fastened according to the code." One overlay over one existing layer is therefore permitted and a second existing layer forces a tear-off. The current state code independently produces the same answer, so the handout's 2015 revision date does not undermine it: base 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), as incorporated by the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code and unamended by Minnesota, bars a roof recover "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Maplewood has no authority to set a different layer limit (Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 2(c)).
City of Minneapolis, Minnesota - Community Planning & Economic Development, Development Services (Building Inspections) (City of Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Substantively STATE-GOVERNED (unamended 2018 IRC Section R908, which Minnesota Rules chapter 1309 does not amend -- no Minn. R. 1309.0908 part exists). Recorded here from Minneapolis's own published guidance rather than from the paywalled ICC text: the Minneapolis Construction Code Services roofing handout states, under "Recovering (overlays) vs. replacement": "The code allows for roof overlays over one existing layer of roof covering under the following conditions: The existing roof or roof covering is not water-soaked or deteriorated to the point that it does not provide an adequate base for additional roofing. No overlays allowed over existing wood shakes, slate, clay, and cement or asbestos-cement tiles. The installation is acceptable by and completed according to the shingle manufacturer's instructions..." -- i.e., one overlay layer (over one existing layer) is permitted in Minneapolis when those conditions are met; full tear-off is otherwise required. Note that this Minneapolis document's header cites the "2015 Minnesota Residential Code" / "2012 IRC" in its intro paragraph but carries a footer disclaimer "Refer to the 2020 Minnesota Residential building code for all requirements and exceptions" -- its substantive content (deck sheathing, drip edge, ice-barrier extent) matches the current 2020 MRC/Minn. R. 1309 amendments exactly, so the version-label mismatch in the doc's own header appears to be an uncorrected legacy citation rather than a substantive conflict.
City of Moorhead, Minnesota - Building Inspections (City of Moorhead, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Moorhead has no authority to set a different layer limit — Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code.
City of Plymouth, Minnesota - Building Inspection Division (City of Plymouth, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. Minnesota does not amend base 2018 IRC Section R908 (roof replacement/recover), confirmed via the Chapter 1309 table of contents (no "1309.0908" part exists). A Minnesota DLI consumer guidance sheet describes the operative rule in Minnesota: "Do not install new roof coverings without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Four exceptions are listed (complete/separate roofing systems like standing-seam metal; certain metal/tile-over-wood-shake installs per Section R908.4; new protective coating over existing spray polyurethane foam without tear-off; and an existing adhered ice-barrier membrane, which may remain and be covered with an additional ice-barrier layer). This is DLI (state), not Plymouth, guidance -- Plymouth has no authority to set a different layer limit.
City of Rochester, Minnesota - Building Safety Division (City of Rochester, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET; NO LOCAL OR STATE LAYER-LIMIT AMENDMENT FOUND. Minnesota Rules chapter 1309's own table of parts, read in full, lists only two parts amending IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies): part 1309.0903 (Section R903, Weather Protection -- kick-out flashing) and part 1309.0905 (Section R905, Requirements for Roof Coverings -- sheathing and drip edge, above). No part numbered 1309.0908 exists, meaning base IRC Section R908 (Roof Replacement) is not amended anywhere in the Minnesota Residential Code. Rochester's own Chapter 4-1 (read in full, see adopted_code) makes no independent roof-layer amendment either -- it only adopts the state building code and sets administrative fees. Because Rochester has no authority to set a different layer limit than the state code provides (Minn. Stat. § 326B.121, subd. 2(c)), and because nobody on this project has read a Minnesota-specific numeric layer limit, no number is published here; base IRC Section R908 (as incorporated, unamended) applies in Rochester as a pointer only. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Roseville, Minnesota - Building Division (City of Roseville, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Roseville has no authority to set a different layer limit — Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code.
City of Shakopee, Minnesota - Building Inspections (City of Shakopee, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Shakopee has no authority to set a different layer limit — Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code.
City of St. Cloud, Minnesota - Building Safety Division (City of St. Cloud, Minnesota)
The City's own "Residential Reroof" handout (Building Safety Department), citing IRC section R908.3.1.1, states verbatim that "Tear-off of the existing roof coverings is required where any of the following occur: ... Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," with an exception where the new covering is "a complete and separate roofing system[], such as standing-seam metal roof systems, that ... do not rely on existing roofs and roof coverings for support." In practice this caps a shingle roof at one existing layer plus a new overlay (two layers total) before a full tear-off is required.
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota - Building and Energy Department (City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. St. Louis Park has no authority to set a different layer limit — Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, and subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions regulating components or systems of a structure that differ from the State Building Code.
City of Woodbury, Minnesota - Building Inspections Division (City of Woodbury, Minnesota)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET; NO LOCAL OR STATE LAYER-LIMIT AMENDMENT FOUND. Minnesota Rules chapter 1309's own table of parts, read in full, lists only two parts amending IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies): part 1309.0903 (Section R903, Weather Protection -- kick-out flashing) and part 1309.0905 (Section R905, Requirements for Roof Coverings -- sheathing and drip edge, above). No part numbered 1309.0908 exists, meaning base IRC Section R908 (Roof Replacement) is not amended anywhere in the Minnesota Residential Code. Woodbury's own Chapter 6, Article II (Sec. 6-16 through 6-19, read in full, see adopted_code) makes no independent roof-layer amendment either -- it only adopts the state building code, two unrelated optional state chapters, and sets administrative fees. Because Woodbury has no authority to set a different layer limit than the state code provides (Minn. Stat. § 326B.121, subd. 2(c)), and because nobody on this project has read a Minnesota-specific numeric layer limit, no number is published here; base IRC Section R908 (as incorporated, unamended) applies in Woodbury as a pointer only. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Missouri (5)
City of Florissant, Missouri - Department of Public Works (Building Department) (City of Florissant, Missouri)
R908 (Roof Replacement) is NOT amended anywhere in Florissant's Section 500.070 amendment list (confirmed by full-text search -- no "R908" match anywhere), so unamended 2021 IRC baseline governs, retrieved directly from ICC's own free digital viewer (codes.iccsafe.org, 2021 IRC): "R908.3 Roof replacement. Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section R905." "R908.3.1 Roof recover. The installation of a new roof covering over an existing roof covering shall be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the new roof covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions[;] 2. Complete and separate roofing systems, such as standing-seam metal roof systems... shall not require the removal of existing roof coverings[;] 3. Metal panel, metal shingle and concrete and clay tile roof coverings shall be permitted to be installed over existing wood shake roofs...; 4. The application of a new protective roof coating over an existing protective roof coating [or various listed existing membrane types] shall be permitted without tear-off." "R908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Net effect: recover over a single existing (non-deteriorated, non-slate/clay/ cement/asbestos-cement-tile) layer is permitted under listed conditions; two or more existing layers forces full tear-off. EDITION-MATCHED to Florissant's own 2021 IRC adoption.
City of Independence, Missouri - Building Inspections Division (City of Independence, Missouri)
The Building Inspections Division's "Guidelines for Asphalt Shingle Re-Roofing" handout states: "Roofing materials are heavy, so the code only allows one layer of roofing material to be re-roofed over." The same handout, under "Recovering versus replacement?", requires full tear-off (not an overlay) when any of the following exist: "Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing." "Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile." "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Four exceptions to that tear-off trigger are listed: (1) complete/separate roofing systems such as standing-seam metal that transmit roof loads directly to the building's structural system and do not rely on the existing roof for support; (2) installation of metal panel, metal shingle, and concrete/clay tile roof coverings over existing wood shake roofs when the application is in accordance with a code section whose number is illegible in the source PDF (it renders as "SectionTBOE", apparently a font-encoding artifact in the city's document); (3) new protective coating over existing spray polyurethane foam roofing without tear-off; and (4) an existing adhered ice-barrier membrane, which may remain in place and be covered with an additional ice-barrier layer per Section R905.
City of St. Peters, Missouri - Building Department (City of St. Peters, Missouri)
"In accordance with IRC Section R908.3, all existing layers of roof coverings must be removed down to the sheathing before reroofing. The only exception is when there is only a single layer of existing roof covering and the roof covering and sheathing below is an adequate base that is neither deteriorated and not water soaked." (City of St. Peters "Residential Re-Roofing Requirements," Building Department, "Revised 3/27/2024," citing the currently adopted 2021 IRC.)
St. Louis County - Department of Transportation and Public Works (Building Division) (St. Louis County, Missouri)
The county's own residential design guides state, for structural roof framing design loads: "Dead Load: Actual dead load and weight of 2 layers of roof covering (R301.4; R908)" (Single-Family Dwelling Design Checklist) and, in near-identical wording, "Dead Load: Use actual dead load including weight of 2 layers roof covering (R301.4; R908)" (Residential Room Additions Building Permit Requirements). This is a structural design-load convention for sizing roof framing/trusses, not a standalone sentence stating "no more than 2 layers of roofing are permitted" -- but it is the only county-published figure on roof-covering layer count, and it is consistent with the base 2015 IRC's standard 2-layer recover assumption under R908, which the county's published amendments do not appear to modify. Treat it as a strong indication of a 2-layer practical ceiling rather than a directly quotable permit-limit rule. Base-code rule, read at 2015 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof re-cover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
St. Louis County, Missouri Department of Transportation and Public Works - Building Permit Section (permitting authority for the City of Chesterfield, Missouri, by contract) (City of Chesterfield, Missouri)
"2015-IRC Section R908.3 requires all existing layers of roof coverings be removed down to the sheathing prior to applying a new roofing covering. The only exception is when there is only a single layer of existing roof covering and the roof covering and sheathing below provides an adequate base that is neither deteriorated nor water soaked." Elsewhere on the same page: "Only 1 layer of roof cover exists, and it is not deteriorated or water soaked (R908.3.1.1-Items 1, 3)" and "The structural roof components are capable of supporting the dead load of 2 roof covers. Properly sealed structural calculations may be required by Building Plan Review on a case-by-case basis (R908.2; St. Louis County Policy)." Net effect: one existing layer may be recovered over under specific conditions; otherwise full tear-off to the sheathing is required. Chesterfield's own Chapter 9 amendment ordinance (Attachment B) does not touch R908.3/R908.3.1.1/R908.2, so this 2015-IRC-as-enforced text stands for Chesterfield too; the only Chapter 9 amendments are to R905.2.8.2 (valleys) and R908.7 (ventilation).
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Nebraska (2)
City of Lincoln - Building & Safety Department (City of Lincoln, Nebraska)
"Section R908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." (Lincoln Municipal Code 20.12.650, Section R908.3.1.1 Amended; Roof Recover Not Allowed; Ord. 20937 Section 129, June 29, 2020). Corroborated by the department's Re-Roof Policy: "If the existing roof has two (2) or more layers of any type of roof covering, all of the layers must be removed."
Lancaster County - Building & Safety (City of Lincoln) (Lancaster County, Nebraska)
Lancaster County shares the City of Lincoln's Building & Safety Department and its joint 2018 IRC adoption ("The City of Lincoln & Lancaster County has adopted and enforces all sections of the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC)..." -- Re-Roof Policy). Under that joint code, LMC 20.12.650 (Section R908.3.1.1 Amended) governs: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Corroborated by the Re-Roof Policy: "If the existing roof has two (2) or more layers of any type of roof covering, all of the layers must be removed." No separate Lancaster County building department exists; see the paired City of Lincoln, Nebraska record.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — New Mexico (12)
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico - Building Safety Division (Planning Department) (City of Albuquerque, New Mexico)
STATEWIDE, set by New Mexico rule rather than by Albuquerque: a two-layer maximum, plus four conditions that force a complete tear-off regardless of layer count. 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer limit: where two applications of any roof covering already exist, a third may not be laid over them. Conditions (2) and (4) are New Mexico-specific tear-off triggers - wood shake, slate, clay, cement and asbestos-cement tile always come off, and pumice or other granular fill must be removed before a new roof is installed. Albuquerque adds nothing on top of this. New Mexico is a floor state and the City could impose a stricter limit through its Uniform Administrative Code, but the 2024 Uniform Administrative Code of the City of Albuquerque was read in full and its amendments to the 2021 New Mexico Residential Building Code are confined to Chapter 1 (administration) and Chapter 3 (Table R301.2 design criteria, Manual J criteria, and deletion of Section R302.1.1); it makes no amendment to the IRC roofing chapters and contains no layer or tear-off provision. The statewide limit is therefore the operative one in Albuquerque.
City of Carlsbad, New Mexico - Building Department (City of Carlsbad, New Mexico)
Two layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - a statewide New Mexico requirement that reaches Carlsbad through the 2021 New Mexico Residential Building Code the City enforces. New Mexico's residential code deletes IRC Section R908.3 (Roof replacement) outright and substitutes its own text. 14.7.3.17 NMAC (Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies), § D, provides verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer cap: once a roof carries two applications of any covering, the next re-roof must be a full tear-off, so no more than two total layers may ever exist. Conditions (1), (2) and (4) force a tear-off regardless of how many layers are present - notably (4), which is aimed at the pumice and granular fill common on older flat and low-slope roofs in southeastern New Mexico. The same state section bars that material from going back on, adding new Section R904.5: "Pumice and other granular fill type materials are not permitted in roof assemblies." Carlsbad neither raises nor lowers this. The City's Code of Ordinances Chapter 8 (Buildings and Building Regulations), Articles I through VII, was read in full and contains no roof-covering, re-roofing or layer provision of the City's own; New Mexico's rule is a floor (14.7.3.6, "minimum standards"), so the state text stands as the operative limit in Carlsbad.
City of Clovis, New Mexico - Department of Building Safety (City of Clovis, New Mexico)
Two existing layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers. This is a statewide New Mexico rule and it is also Clovis's own law, because Section 15.16.010 of the Clovis City Code adopts the 2021 IRC together with "any amendments to the provisions of the International Residential Code, 2021 Edition, which are adopted by the state of New Mexico, whether such amendments are adopted as of or subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section." 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") is one of those amendments: it deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Clovis adds nothing on top of this limit. Title 15 of the Clovis City Code (Buildings and Construction), Chapters 15.04 through 15.50, contains no IRC Chapter 9 amendment and no layer restriction of its own; the only Clovis exclusion from the residential code is IRC Section R313 on automatic fire sprinkler systems. The limit applies on the same terms across the Department of Building Safety's whole permitting reach - the city, its five-mile extra-territorial jurisdiction, and the City of Portales with its three-mile extra-territorial jurisdiction - because 14.7.3 NMAC is statewide.
City of Farmington, New Mexico - Building Inspection Division (Community Development) (City of Farmington, New Mexico)
Two existing layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - a statewide New Mexico rule that is also Farmington's own law, because Section 7-2-1 of the Farmington City Code adopts by reference the Construction Industries Division's standards at "New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapters 5-10", which includes 14.7.3 NMAC. 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Farmington adds nothing on top of this limit - Chapter 7 of the Farmington City Code (Buildings and Building Regulations), Articles 1 through 4, contains no IRC Chapter 9 amendment and no layer restriction of its own, and the five local exceptions in Section 7-2-1 are confined to permit exemptions, permit life, fees, the investigation fee and additional inspections. The City's permit-required list does contemplate an overlay as a permitted category - "Roof, Overlay, Re-roof, Structural Roof Renovations" - which is consistent with the state rule allowing a second layer only where none of the four tear-off triggers is present. In practice the count is verified at the decking inspection the City requires once the existing covering is removed.
City of Gallup, New Mexico - Planning & Development Department (City of Gallup, New Mexico)
STATEWIDE, set by New Mexico rule rather than by Gallup: a two-layer maximum, plus four conditions that force a complete tear-off regardless of layer count. 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer limit: where two applications of any roof covering already exist, a third may not be laid over them. Conditions (2) and (4) are New Mexico-specific tear-off triggers - wood shake, slate, clay, cement and asbestos-cement tile always come off, and pumice or other granular fill must be removed before a new roof is installed. Gallup adds nothing on top of this. New Mexico is a floor state and the City could impose a stricter limit, but Gallup's own published governing-codes list adopts the state codes without a local roofing amendment, and the City's only local construction instrument on that list, the Land Development Standards, governs land use, zoning and site development. The statewide limit is therefore the operative one in Gallup. The City does put the question in front of the applicant at intake: both the Contractor's and the Homeowner's Roofing Permit Application open with "TYPE OF ROOFING (Check One): TEAR-OFF / OVER-LAY", so whether the job is a tear-off or a layover is declared on the application and is visible to the reviewer before the permit issues.
City of Hobbs, New Mexico - Building Safety & Permitting Services (Building Inspections, Planning/Engineering Department) (City of Hobbs, New Mexico)
Two layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - a statewide New Mexico rule that applies in Hobbs through the City's adoption of 14.7.3 NMAC. New Mexico's residential code deletes IRC Section R908.3 (Roof replacement) outright and substitutes its own text. 14.7.3.17 NMAC (Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies), § D, provides verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer cap: a roof already carrying two applications of any covering must be stripped before a new covering goes on, so no more than two total layers may ever exist. Conditions (1), (2) and (4) force a tear-off regardless of layer count. Hobbs adds nothing on top of this and subtracts nothing from it - Hobbs Municipal Code Title 15 was read in full and contains no roof-covering or re-roofing provision of the City's own. Hobbs does republish the state text as its own guidance: the City's "Residential Re-Roof Guidelines," issued "In coordination with the 2021 New Mexico Residential Building Code (NMRBC)," reprints the substituted R908.3 in full under the heading "GENERAL RE-ROOF REQUIREMENTS" and cites it as "[14.7.3.17 NMAC - Rp, 14.7.3.17 NMAC, 7/14/2023]." The same state section also bars loose fill from roof assemblies at new Section R904.5: "Pumice and other granular fill type materials are not permitted in roof assemblies."
City of Las Cruces, New Mexico - Community Development Department (Building Section) (City of Las Cruces, New Mexico)
Two existing layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - the statewide New Mexico rule, which reaches Las Cruces because Section 30-721(A)(2) of the Las Cruces Municipal Code adopts the "2021 International Residential Code, as adopted by NMAC 14.7.3.8-14.7.3.28" and its exclusions are confined to the state rule's administrative subsections; the roofing amendments at 14.7.3.17 NMAC are adopted intact. 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer limit; conditions (2) and (4) are New Mexico-specific tear-off triggers. Las Cruces adds nothing on top: neither Section 30-721 nor the amendments in Section 30-722 touch the IRC roofing chapters, and Chapter 30 contains no layer or recover provision of its own.
City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico - Building Division (Development Services Department) (City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico)
STATEWIDE, set by New Mexico rule rather than by Rio Rancho: a two-layer maximum, plus four conditions that force a complete tear-off regardless of layer count. 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer limit: once two applications of any roof covering are already in place, a third may not be laid over them. Conditions (2) and (4) are New Mexico-specific tear-off triggers - wood shake, slate, clay, cement and asbestos-cement tile must always come off, and pumice or other granular fill must be removed before a new roof goes on. Rio Rancho adds nothing on top of this. New Mexico is a floor state, so the City could impose a stricter limit, but Rio Rancho Municipal Code Chapter 151 (Building Regulations, Sections 151.01 through 151.99) contains no roofing provision at all, and the Building Division's published codes list adopts the IRC as amended by the state rule without a local roofing amendment. The statewide limit is therefore the operative one in Rio Rancho.
City of Roswell, New Mexico - Building & Inspections Division (Community Development) (City of Roswell, New Mexico)
Two existing layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - a statewide New Mexico rule that applies in Roswell. 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." The City of Roswell adds nothing on top of this limit: Chapter 6 of the Roswell Code of Ordinances (Buildings and Building Regulations), Articles I through III, contains no IRC Chapter 9 amendment and no layer restriction of its own. In practice the limit is enforced at the decking inspection the City requires "upon removal of existing roof", at which the number and condition of the layers coming off and the state of the deck underneath are both visible to the inspector.
City of Santa Fe, New Mexico - Building Division (Land Use Department) (City of Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Two existing layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - a statewide New Mexico rule that applies in Santa Fe. 14.7.3.17 NMAC ("CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES: See this chapter of the IRC except as provided below") deletes IRC Section R908.3 and substitutes, verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." The pumice/granular-fill trigger at (4) is distinctively New Mexican and matters in Santa Fe, where older flat and low-slope roofs were commonly built up over granular fill. The City of Santa Fe adds nothing on top of this limit: Chapter VII SFCC 1987 (Building and Housing), Sections 7-1 through 7-16, contains no IRC Chapter 9 amendment and no layer restriction of its own. The City does track the count administratively - its own Re-Roof Permit Application requires the applicant to state "No. of Existing Layers" and the "Roof Classification (A, B, or C)" on the face of the application.
New Mexico Construction Industries Division - building permit authority for Alamogordo, New Mexico (City of Alamogordo, New Mexico)
Two layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - statewide, and directly applicable in Alamogordo because the state code is the operative construction code inside the city limits. New Mexico's residential code deletes IRC Section R908.3 (Roof replacement) outright and substitutes its own text. 14.7.3.17 NMAC (Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies), § D, provides verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer cap: a roof already carrying two applications of any covering must be stripped before a new covering goes on, so no more than two total layers may ever exist. Conditions (1), (2) and (4) force a tear-off regardless of layer count, and the same state section bars the fill material from going back on with new Section R904.5: "Pumice and other granular fill type materials are not permitted in roof assemblies." Compliance is checked in the field - 14.5.2.8.E(3) NMAC requires a "decking inspection upon removal of existing roof" on every re-roof permit. Alamogordo adds nothing on top of the state text and could not fall below it: the City repealed its own building-code adoptions in 2008 and Sec. 8-03-140 requires all construction in the city to "fully conform in every respect to the codes and amendments adopted by the state construction industries division of the regulation and licensing department." Chapter 8 of the City Code was read in full and contains no roof-covering or re-roofing provision.
New Mexico Construction Industries Division - building permit authority for Los Lunas, New Mexico (Village of Los Lunas, New Mexico)
Two layers maximum, plus four mandatory tear-off triggers - statewide, and directly applicable in Los Lunas because the state code is the operative construction code for structural work in the Village. New Mexico's residential code deletes IRC Section R908.3 (Roof replacement) outright and substitutes its own text. 14.7.3.17 NMAC (Chapter 9 Roof Assemblies), § D, provides verbatim: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: (1) The existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. (2) The existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. (3) The existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. (4) Where pumice or other granular fill are present, the material must be removed prior to installing a new roof." Condition (3) is the layer cap: a roof already carrying two applications of any covering must be stripped before a new covering goes on, so no more than two total layers may ever exist. Conditions (1), (2) and (4) force a tear-off regardless of layer count, and the same state section bars the fill material from going back on with new Section R904.5: "Pumice and other granular fill type materials are not permitted in roof assemblies." Compliance is checked in the field - 14.5.2.8.E(3) NMAC requires a "decking inspection upon removal of existing roof" on every re-roof permit, and those inspections are CID's. Los Lunas adds nothing on top of the state text: Sec. 15.04.010 adopts the State's codes by reference "and subsequent revisions thereto adopted by the State of New Mexico pursuant to the Construction Industries Licensing Act," and Los Lunas Municipal Code Title 15 was read in full, Chapters 15.04 through 15.24, with no roof-covering or re-roofing provision of the Village's own anywhere in it.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — North Dakota (1)
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Ohio (21)
City of Akron, Ohio - Building Permits and Inspections (City of Akron, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019). Section 908.3 Roof replacement, verbatim: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section 905." Section 908.3.1 Roof recover permits installing a new roof covering over an existing one where any of four conditions occur, the first being "Where the new roof covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions." Section 908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed, verbatim: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Net effect for the common asphalt-shingle case: one existing layer may be recovered over; once two or more layers already exist, full tear-off to the deck is mandatory -- functionally a one-layer (single recover) limit, identical statewide including in Akron.
City of Canton, Ohio - Building/Code Enforcement Division (City of Canton, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908.3 (Roof replacement) states: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section 905." Section 908.3.1 (Roof recover) permits installing a new roof covering over an existing one where the manufacturer's approved instructions are followed (among other listed conditions). Section 908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) bars a recover where the existing roof is water-soaked/deteriorated, is slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile, or "has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Net effect for the common asphalt-shingle case: one existing layer may be recovered over; once two or more layers already exist, full tear-off to the deck is mandatory. Whether Canton has added any local modification to this state rule could not be confirmed -- see adopted_code.
City of Cincinnati, Ohio - Department of Buildings & Inspections (City of Cincinnati, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE, and independently reflected in Cincinnati's own permit-exemption wording ("no more than two layers of roofing material"). RCO Section 908.3 (Roof replacement) states: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section 905." Section 908.3.1 (Roof recover) permits installing a new roof covering over an existing one where any of four conditions occur, the first being "[w]here the new roof covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions." Section 908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) then bars a recover "where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Net effect for the common asphalt-shingle case: one existing layer may be recovered over when the manufacturer's instructions are followed and the existing roof is sound; once two or more layers already exist, full tear-off to the deck is mandatory.
City of Cleveland Heights, Ohio - Division of Building (City of Cleveland Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio)
Two total layers. A roof recover over one existing layer is allowed; a recover over two or more is not, so a roof already carrying two coverings must be torn off. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Note that Ohio's rule has three conditions and none of them is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no circumstance here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Two further rules travel with a recover: where a new covering over wood shingles or shakes would create a combustible concealed space, section 908.4 requires the entire existing surface to be covered with gypsum board, mineral fiber, glass fiber or other approved material first; and under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled." Cleveland Heights publishes no overlay rule of its own, so the state rule is what applies here.
City of Cleveland, Ohio - Department of Building and Housing (City of Cleveland, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019). Section 908.3 Roof replacement, verbatim: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section 905." Section 908.3.1 Roof recover permits installing a new roof covering over an existing one where any of four conditions occur, the first being "Where the new roof covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions"; the others cover complete and separate systems such as standing-seam metal, metal panel/metal shingle/ concrete and clay tile over existing wood shakes per Section 908.4, and re-coating of existing coated/metal/roll/built-up/modified-bitumen/single-ply/ SPF systems. Section 908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed, verbatim: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Net effect for the common asphalt-shingle case: one existing layer may be recovered over; once two or more layers already exist, full tear-off to the deck is mandatory -- functionally a one-layer (single recover) limit.
City of Columbus, Ohio - Department of Building and Zoning Services (City of Columbus, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908 (OAC 4101:8-9-01) sets the reroofing rules. Section 908.3 Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section 905." Section 908.3.1 Roof recover permits installing a new covering over an existing one where, among other conditions, "the new roof covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions." Section 908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed then bars a recover where: "1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." NET EFFECT for the common asphalt-shingle case: at most ONE existing layer may be recovered over, so a second layer of shingles is the maximum on the roof; once two or more applications already exist, full tear-off to the deck is mandatory. Recover is also barred outright over slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile, and over any deteriorated or water-soaked existing roof.
City of Dayton, Ohio - Division of Building Inspection (City of Dayton, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE, and independently echoed in Dayton's own permit FAQ wording (see repair_permit_threshold). RCO Section 908.3 (Roof replacement) states: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section 905." Section 908.3.1 (Roof recover) permits installing a new roof covering over an existing one where the manufacturer's approved instructions are followed (among other conditions). Section 908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) bars a recover where the existing roof is water-soaked/deteriorated, is slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile, or "has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Net effect for the common asphalt-shingle case: one existing layer may be recovered over; once two or more layers already exist, full tear-off to the deck is mandatory.
City of Elyria, Ohio - Building Department (City of Elyria, Ohio)
CITY-SPECIFIC. Elyria's own "Permit Application: Repair/Remodel Existing Space - 1, 2, 3 Family" (Rev. 6/22) presents the applicant with only two roofing work-type checkboxes: "REROOFING OVER EXISTING (ONE) LAYER" or "REMOVE & REPLACE ROOFING" -- operationalizing a maximum of one existing shingle layer that may be roofed over (i.e., two total layers) before a full tear-off is required. The same form separately notes that if the existing roof deck is water-soaked or deteriorated to the point of being unacceptable as a base, it must be replaced.
City of Euclid, Ohio - Department of Building and Housing (City of Euclid, Cuyahoga County, Ohio)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated." Euclid publishes no overlay rule of its own, so the state rule is what applies here.
City of Hamilton, Ohio - Building Department (City of Hamilton, Ohio)
CITY-SPECIFIC. The City of Hamilton's own "Roofing Permit (Existing Building)" application (Building Department, 345 High Street, 3rd floor) states, verbatim, next to the tear-off question: "NOTE: NO MORE THAN TWO LAYERS ARE PERMITTED FOR ANY ROOF." The form applies to 1-, 2- or 3-family dwellings (among the property types the applicant circles) and requires the applicant to state whether the job is a complete tear-off and replacement.
City of Kettering, Ohio - Building Division (City of Kettering, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. No Kettering-specific layer-count provision was found in Chapter 1301. The statewide RCO floor governs instead: RCO Section 908.3 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019) requires that "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck" (with a narrow exception permitting an existing adhered ice-barrier membrane to remain and be covered by an additional layer). Where a roof recover (new covering installed over an existing one, without tear-off) is used instead of a full replacement, RCO Section 908.3.1.1 bars the recover method outright "[w]here the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" -- operating as a two-layer cap on the recover pathway; beyond that, full tear-off to the deck is required.
City of Lorain, Ohio - Building, Housing and Planning Department (City of Lorain, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908.3.1.1 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019) lists conditions where "a roof recover shall not be permitted," including, verbatim: "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Read together with Section 908.3 ("Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck"), the statewide effect is that a new roof covering may be installed over at most one existing layer (a "recover"); once two or more layers already exist, only a full tear-off replacement down to the deck is permitted -- an effective two-layer statewide ceiling. No Lorain-specific roof-layer provision was found: Lorain's own Residential Construction Submittal for Plan Review and Building Permit application does not ask about existing or resulting layer count, and Lorain's full codified ordinances -- which could add a local layer limit under ORC 3781.01(B) -- are not publicly readable (see adopted_code).
City of Mansfield, Ohio - Bureau of Building Inspections, Licenses and Permits (City of Mansfield, Richland County, Ohio)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
City of Mentor, Ohio - Engineering and Building Department (City of Mentor, Lake County, Ohio)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled."
City of Parma, Ohio - Building Department (City of Parma, Ohio)
CITY-SPECIFIC. Parma's own "Windows / Siding / Roofing / Door Permit Application" (Building Department form WSR08072026) states, verbatim, under the ROOFING section: "NO MORE THAN TWO TOTAL LAYERS PERMITTED." The same form requires the applicant to state whether the job is a tear-off or a reroof and, if reroofing, how many total layers the roof will have once the work is complete -- operationalizing the two-layer cap at the point of permit issuance.
City of Springfield, Ohio - Building Regulations Division (City of Springfield, Ohio)
CITY-SPECIFIC, confirmed via Springfield's own Residential Re-roofing Affidavit Application (read in full): the form's three checkbox project types allow "one layer of roofing material... applied over one existing layer of roofing material" (i.e., a maximum of two total layers) as a recover job, but require full removal of the present roofing material where the project falls under the form's project-type (2), citing as its own example "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The same form's page-2 "Residential Roofing Regulations" excerpt (Section 907, Reroofing -- Recovering versus Replacement) states this as a rule, verbatim: new roof covering shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," subject to an exception for complete, separate roofing systems (e.g., standing-seam metal) that transmit loads directly to the structure without relying on the existing roof for support.
City of Strongsville, Ohio - Building Department (City of Strongsville, Cuyahoga County, Ohio)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
City of Toledo, Ohio - Division of Building Inspection (City of Toledo, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019). Section 908.3 Roof replacement, verbatim: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck. Exception: Where the existing roof assembly includes an ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck, the existing ice barrier membrane shall be permitted to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane in accordance with Section 905." Section 908.3.1 Roof recover permits installing a new roof covering over an existing one where any of four conditions occur, the first being "Where the new roof covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions." Section 908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed, verbatim: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Net effect for the common asphalt-shingle case: one existing layer may be recovered over; once two or more layers already exist, full tear-off to the deck is mandatory -- functionally a one-layer (single recover) limit, identical statewide including in Toledo.
Hamilton County, Ohio - Buildings and Inspections (Hamilton County, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908.3.1.1 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019) states that a "roof recover" (installing a new roof covering over an existing one without tear-off) "shall not be permitted" where, among other listed conditions, "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" -- a statewide ceiling of two layers before a full tear-off to the deck is required. Hamilton County's own Roofing Data Sheet asks the applicant to state the number of existing shingle layers but does not itself state a different numeric maximum.
Lucas County, Ohio - Building Regulations Department (Lucas County, Ohio)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
Summit County, Ohio - Division of Building Standards (Summit County, Ohio)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908.3.1.1 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019), read in full from the state's own copy, states: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Section 908.3 (Roof replacement) separately requires that a full roof replacement "include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with a narrow exception allowing an adhered ice-barrier membrane to remain in place under an additional ice-barrier layer. Together these provisions bar recovering over an existing roof that already carries two or more layers, effectively capping a re-covered roof at two total layers. Summit County's own residential permit application does not separately restate a layer limit, and the county's own codified Building Code -- which could add a local layer restriction -- could not be opened (see adopted_code).
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Other (11)
Butler County, Ohio - Department of Development, Building and Zoning (Unincorporated Butler County, Ohio. The County's Building and Zoning staff is responsible for enforcing the building code, electrical code and zoning regulations "for the unincorporated areas of Butler County," so work inside an incorporated city or village is not this authority's. Its own inspection schedule names the townships it serves: Hanover, Morgan, Reily and Ross; College Corner, Madison, Milford, Oxford, St. Clair and Wayne; and Fairfield, Lemon, Liberty, Trenton and West Chester, which get inspections every day rather than on set days.)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
City of Dublin, Ohio - Division of Building Standards (City of Dublin, Ohio. Dublin straddles three counties — Franklin, Delaware and Union — which matters for tax but not for code, since the Residential Code of Ohio is a statewide rule.)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
City of Middletown, Ohio - Building Inspection Division (City of Middletown, Ohio. Middletown straddles Butler and Warren counties, which matters for sales tax — the two counties are at different rates and one of them changes on 2026-10-01 — but not for code, since the Residential Code of Ohio is a statewide rule.)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
City of Spearfish, South Dakota - Building Services Division (City of Spearfish, Lawrence County, South Dakota, together with the Lawrence County Joint Powers Area outside the city limits for which the City's Building Services Division issues building permits. Where an address sits relative to the city limit still matters for tax even though it does not change which desk issues the permit: the municipal sales and use tax applies inside the city and not in the surrounding unincorporated county.)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Spearfish adopts Chapters 1-24 of the 2021 International Residential Code, which puts Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, inside the adopted range, and it makes no amendment to that chapter. The whole of Section 150.016, which is the entire building-code amendment list in the Spearfish code, was read and then measured: R908 occurs zero times, R905 zero times, R903 zero times. The Chapter 150 table of contents was fetched and read in full - twenty-two sections across five article groups - and no other section of the chapter touches roofing. The base code text therefore governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2021 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The other two conditions bite whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and an existing covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. NOTE THE INTERACTION WITH THE PERMIT EXEMPTION, because it is easy to get wrong. Spearfish requires no permit for replacement of similar roofing materials, but the layer rule is a rule about the work rather than about the paperwork, and it applies to an exempt job exactly as it applies to a permitted one. The amended R105.2 says so itself: an exemption from the permit requirement "shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code."
City of Tea, South Dakota - Planning, Zoning and Building Services (City of Tea, Lincoln County, South Dakota. Tea sits directly south of Sioux Falls and its city limits are the boundary that matters for both permitting and municipal tax, since the surrounding unincorporated Lincoln County land carries neither the City's permit requirement nor its municipal sales tax.)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. This is the best-sourced layer limit in the South Dakota group because the City restates the rule itself rather than leaving it to the adopted code. The "Asphalt Shingles Information" handout, under the heading "Recovering Versus Replacement," states: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The adopting ordinance corroborates it by leaving the provision alone: R908 occurs zero times across the whole of Ordinance No. 299, so Section R908.3.1.1 of the adopted 2021 International Residential Code is unamended. ONE DISCREPANCY IS WORTH KNOWING AND IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAYER COUNT. The handout's condition 2 includes wood shake. The 2021 edition Tea has adopted lists only "slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile" in that condition; wood shake was dropped from it after the 2015 edition. So the handout was drafted from an older edition of the code and has not been refreshed since the City moved to the 2021 edition in 2023, and a roofer told by the handout that a wood shake roof must be torn off is being told something the currently adopted code does not itself require. Condition 3, the layer count, is identical in every edition from 2015 through 2024, so the two-layer answer is the same whichever text is applied. Where the two disagree, note the ordinance's own conflicts clause at Section 14.04(d), under which the City's ordinances prevail over the adopted model code - and ask the building official, because the handout is guidance rather than an enactment.
City of Vermillion, South Dakota - Code Enforcement Department (City of Vermillion, Clay County, South Dakota. The city limit is the boundary that matters for both the permit requirement and the municipal sales and use tax; the surrounding unincorporated Clay County land carries neither.)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Section 150.03 is the whole of Vermillion's residential code adoption and amendment, and it was read in full: all thirty-five lettered items from R101.1 through the chapter exclusions at (33) to (35), plus the enactment history. It was then measured: R908 occurs zero times, R905 zero times, R903 zero times. The Chapter 150 table of contents was also fetched and read in full, and no other section of the chapter touches roofing. The exclusions are express and do not reach Chapter 9, so Roof Assemblies is adopted and unamended and the base code text governs. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2018 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and an existing covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. NOTE THAT THE 2018 EDITION IS THE RIGHT ONE TO READ HERE. The three-condition form of this rule runs from the 2015 edition through the 2024 one, so the layer answer would be the same on a later edition, but the 2006 and 2009 editions carried a fourth condition about hail exposure that could force tear-off over a single layer. Vermillion is on 2018, so that fourth condition does not apply. South Dakota's statutory ceiling at SDCL 11-10-12 bars a municipality from imposing requirements "more stringent than" the edition the statute names, so local drift in this state runs toward the permissive rather than the strict. Vermillion has not drifted at all here.
Franklin County, Ohio - Building Department (Franklin County, Ohio -- unincorporated areas of the county plus the ten contract townships that route zoning compliance through the county (Brown, Clinton, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Mifflin, Norwich, Pleasant, Sharon and Truro townships). This does not include Columbus or the county's other incorporated cities and villages, which run their own separate residential permitting (see the Columbus, OH record for that city).)
SET BY STATE RULE. RCO Section 908.3.1.1 (OAC 4101:8-9-01, effective 7/1/2019), read in full from the state's own copy, states that "A roof recover shall not be permitted where ... the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" -- operationalizing a two-layer cap statewide, applicable in Franklin County's covered territory. Roof replacement (908.3) instead requires removal of existing layers down to the deck. No Franklin-County-specific layer-count provision was found in the county's own generic building-permit application or fee schedule.
Montgomery County, Ohio - Building Regulations Division (Montgomery County, Ohio. The County states its own reach as "the citizens and users of buildings in many of the jurisdictions in Montgomery County, including all of the townships and several of the cities and villages." That is deliberately not a list, and this record does not turn it into one: all townships are covered, but which cities and villages are covered is not published here, so confirm the specific address with the Division before bidding.)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Residential Code of Ohio section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
Olmsted County, Minnesota - Planning Department, Inspections Division (Building code administration for four cities - Byron, Chatfield, Eyota and Stewartville - and three townships - Eyota, Marion and Quincy - within Olmsted County, Minnesota. This is not a county-wide authority and not an unincorporated-area authority. Olmsted County contains eight cities and eighteen townships; the County Planning Department's Inspections Division administers the Minnesota State Building Code for only the seven jurisdictions named above. Rochester is NOT among them - the County directs building and permitting questions inside Rochester city limits to the Rochester Building Safety department at 507-328-2600. The County states the scope itself: "The Olmsted County Planning department Inspections Division provides building code and permit administration for the cities of Byron, Chatfield, Eyota, and Stewartville as well as the townships of Eyota, Marion, and Quincy." Three other County boundaries deliberately differ and must not be conflated with this one: the Inspections Division administers the Septic System Ordinance for the townships of Eyota, Marion, Oronoco and Quincy "and for all of the small cities within Olmsted County," it administers the Water Well Ordinance "for the entire county," and it is the planning and zoning authority for only Eyota, Marion and Quincy Townships. One inconsistency is published on the County's own fees page and is reported rather than resolved: the building-permit section names the unincorporated areas of Marion, Quincy and Eyota Townships, while the manufactured-home, trade and septic sections on the same page each name Marion, Oronoco, Quincy and Eyota. Whether Oronoco Township is inside the building-permit jurisdiction is therefore stated both ways by the County. Because the County publishes an address-level Jurisdiction Checker, confirm a specific parcel there before assuming which desk holds a job.)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT COUNTY-SET. The governing text is the 2020 Minnesota Residential Code, Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed), read in Minnesota's own merged code rather than inferred from the base IRC: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Olmsted County has no authority to set a different layer limit - Minn. Stat. 326B.121, subd. 1 makes the State Building Code the standard that applies statewide and provides that it supersedes the building code of any municipality, subd. 2(c) bars a municipality from requiring building code provisions that differ from the State Building Code, and Minn. Stat. 326B.103, subd. 9 defines "municipality" to include a county.
Scott County, Iowa - Planning & Development Department (Unincorporated Scott County, Iowa, plus the Cities of Dixon, Donahue, LeClaire, Long Grove, McCausland, Panorama Park, Princeton, and Riverdale under a 28E intergovernmental agreement. Davenport and Bettendorf are explicitly excluded — those two cities issue their own building permits.)
Scott County adopts the 2021 International Residential Code by Ordinance No. 24-07. That ordinance's own amendment section, Sec. 5-6 (19 lettered items, read in full), does not touch roof-recovering or roof-layer-limit provisions, so the base 2021 IRC provisions apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Stark County, Ohio - Building Department (Unincorporated Stark County, Ohio, plus contracting villages. For RESIDENTIAL work the County's own jurisdiction directory covers the townships of Bethlehem, Canton, Jackson, Lake, Lawrence, Lexington, Marlboro, Nimishillen, Osnaburg, Paris, Perry, Pike, Plain, Sandy, Sugarcreek, Tuscarawas and Washington, and the villages of Brewster, East Canton, Harmon, Hills and Dales, Magnolia, Meyers Lake, Minerva and Waynesburg. Alliance, Beach City, East Sparta, Hartville, Louisville, Navarre and Wilmot are listed for COMMERCIAL work only, so residential roofing in those seven is not this authority's. Canal Fulton, Canton, Massillon and North Canton are outside the County's jurisdiction entirely and run their own building departments.)
Two total layers. The default is a full tear off, and a recover over one existing layer is the exception; a recover over two or more layers is not allowed. Stark County prints the governing text on its own reroof form and it matches the Residential Code of Ohio exactly. Section 908.3, Roof replacement: "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck to stay and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. Section 908.3.1 then permits a recover in four listed situations, the first being where the new covering is installed in accordance with the roof covering manufacturer's approved instructions. Section 908.3.1.1, Roof recover not allowed, sets the bar: "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Ohio's rule has three conditions and none is a hail exposure condition, so unlike the older model code editions still in force in some states there is no case here in which a single existing layer must come off on hail grounds alone. Under section 908.5 aggregate surfacing "shall not be reinstalled," and existing flashings, edgings, outlets and vents "shall be replaced where rusted, damaged or deteriorated."
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — South Dakota (12)
City of Aberdeen, South Dakota - Building Inspection Department (City of Aberdeen, South Dakota)
The City's own "Residential Shingling Guide" (Building Inspection Department) states, under "Roof replacement," that "roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception letting an existing ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier. The same guide separately allows a "roof re-cover" - installing new roof covering over an existing one - where installed per the manufacturer's instructions, for complete separate systems such as standing-seam metal, or under special conditions over existing wood shake systems, but states a roof re-cover "shall not be permitted" where the existing roof covering is water-soaked or deteriorated, is wood shake/slate/clay/cement/ asbestos-cement tile, or "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." In practice this allows recovering over one existing layer (reaching two total) before full tear-off is required, unless a bar or exception applies. Aberdeen's amendment ordinance to the adopted 2018 IRC (Sec. 12-21, read in full) does not separately touch Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies), so this guidance reflects the base code's roof-recover framework as applied by the city's own published handout.
City of Box Elder, South Dakota - Planning and Zoning Department (City of Box Elder, Pennington and Meade Counties, South Dakota)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Box Elder adopts IRC chapters 1 to 9, which includes the roofing chapter, and it amends no re-cover or overlay provision at all. That was established by measuring the City's entire codification rather than by reading a page of it: across the whole text, "R908" occurs zero times and "R907" occurs zero times, and the only four occurrences of "R905" are the City's two ice barrier amendments at Secs. 6-257 and 6-258. The operative rule is therefore base 2018 IRC R908.3.1.1 unmodified: "Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Note how this interacts with the permit exemption above: a re-cover over one existing layer with like material and no deck work is both lawful under the code and exempt from a city permit, which does not make it exempt from the code.
City of Brandon, South Dakota - Planning and Inspection Department (City of Brandon, Minnehaha County, South Dakota)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. This answer survives Brandon's 2021 versus 2024 edition question, which is why it can be stated while the adopted edition cannot be resolved. Brandon amends no re-cover or overlay provision at all: measured across the whole of Ordinance #653, "R908" occurs zero times, "R907" occurs zero times and "R903" occurs zero times, and the only occurrences of "R905" are inside the reproduced footnotes to Table R301.2(1). Both candidate editions carry the identical bar. The 2021 International Residential Code states it at R908.3.1.1: "Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The 2024 edition restructured the section and carries the same three conditions inside an unnumbered "Exceptions" block under R908.4, so the layer rule is unchanged either way. What is NOT settled by this is what Brandon's own amendments to the 2024 editions will say, because the City has not published them.
City of Brookings, South Dakota - Community Development Department, Building Services Division (City of Brookings, South Dakota)
Brookings adopts the 2021 International Residential Code by Ordinance No. 23-008. That ordinance, read in full (Sec. 22-31 through 22-36, covering every added, deleted, or modified IRC and IBC section), amends numerous provisions but does not touch Chapter 9's reroofing / roof-recover provisions at all, so the base 2021 IRC roof-recover and layer-limit provisions apply unmodified in Brookings; the city has not published a separate local layer-limit rule of its own. Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Harrisburg, South Dakota - Building Services (City of Harrisburg, Lincoln County, South Dakota)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Harrisburg amends no section of the roofing chapter, which was established by measuring the whole of Ordinance #2021-17 rather than by reading it as prose: across the entire instrument, "R903", "R904", "R905", "R906", "R907" and "R908" each occur zero times, and "overlay", "recover", "tear" and "layer" each occur zero times. Since the ordinance provides that "All other sections or subsections of the 2021 International Residential Code shall remain as originally published," the operative rule is base 2021 IRC R908.3.1.1 unmodified: "Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." So a single sound existing layer may be recovered; two existing layers, a deteriorated deck, or a slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement covering all require a tear-off.
City of Huron, South Dakota - Inspections Department (City of Huron, Beadle County, South Dakota)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Huron writes no roofing rule of its own. Title 18 of the Municipal Code is small enough to have been read from end to end, and the section counts were confirmed from the codification's own child listings before reading: chapter 18.04 has exactly three sections, chapter 18.08 exactly one and chapter 18.12 exactly one. The only amendments section 18.12.010 makes to the adopted codes are administrative and fiscal, so the operative rule is base 2021 IRC R908.3.1.1 unmodified: "Roof recover not allowed. A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." So a single sound existing layer may be recovered; two existing layers, a deteriorated deck, or a slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement covering all require a tear-off.
City of Mitchell, South Dakota - Building Inspection (Public Works Department) (City of Mitchell, South Dakota)
Mitchell adopted the 2012 International Residential Code by reference at City Code 9-2-1 (Ordinance 2505, December 15, 2014), codified through Ordinance O2025-16. IRC Section R907.3 bars a recover once the existing roof already carries multiple layers: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: ... Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," subject to four listed exceptions -- a fully self- supporting roof system such as standing-seam metal that does not rely on the old roof for support, metal or tile installed over existing wood shake per Section R907.4, a new protective coating over an existing spray polyurethane foam roof, and an existing adhered ice- barrier membrane, which may remain and be covered with an additional ice-barrier layer.
City of Pierre, South Dakota - Development Services, Building Department (City of Pierre, South Dakota)
Chapter 11, Article 4 (the city's Residential Code adoption ordinance, read in full) amends only Section R905.1.2 (Ice Barrier) within its ROOFS section; it does not touch the base 2018 IRC's roof-recover or layer-limit provisions (Section R907), so those base-code provisions apply unmodified in Pierre. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota - Planning and Development Services, Building Services Division (City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota)
Sioux Falls has not locally amended the model code's roof-recover limit the way Rapid City has amended its own. The City's own "Asphalt Shingle Information Sheet" (Planning & Development Services) states that "roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," with an exception permitting an existing ice barrier membrane that is adhered to the roof deck to remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. The same sheet separately allows a "roof recover" - installing a new roof covering over an existing one - subject to conditions (including where installed per the manufacturer's instructions, for complete separate systems such as standing-seam metal, and for certain coating-over-coating applications), but states "a roof recover shall not be permitted where... the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," nor where the existing covering is water-soaked/deteriorated or is slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. In practice this allows recovering over one existing layer (reaching two total) before full tear-off is required, unless a recover exception or bar applies - standard IRC-derived reroofing language, not a Rapid-City-style zero-layer local amendment.
City of Sturgis, South Dakota - Building Inspector's Office (City of Sturgis, Meade County, South Dakota)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer forces a tear-off to the deck. Sturgis adopts Chapters 1-10 of the 2021 International Residential Code, which puts Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, inside the adopted range, and its adoption carries only three modifications to the residential code, of which the only roofing one is the ice and water barrier requirement. The whole of Title 2 was read and then measured across its 109,137 characters: R908 occurs zero times, R905 zero times, R903 zero times, and the phrase "two or more applications" zero times. Section R908 is therefore unamended and the base code text governs. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2021 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and an existing covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Note that South Dakota's statutory ceiling at SDCL 11-10-12 bars a municipality from imposing requirements "more stringent than" the edition the statute names, so a South Dakota city's local drift on a rule like this one runs toward the permissive rather than the strict. Sturgis has not drifted at all here.
City of Watertown, South Dakota - Building Inspection / Licenses & Permits (City of Watertown, South Dakota)
The city adopts the 2018 IRC (Ord 18-27, Title 5, Chapter 5.03). Its lettered amendment list (items a. through zz., read in full) does not touch roof recovering/replacement layer limits (IRC Chapter 9, Sec. R907), so the base 2018 IRC provisions on roof layers apply unmodified. No Watertown-specific layer-count figure is published in the city's own Code of Ordinances. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Yankton, South Dakota - Community and Economic Development, Building Services & Permits (City of Yankton, South Dakota)
The city's own Exterior Building Permit Application form states directly on the "Roofing / Re-Roof" line: "Note: maximum two layers of roofing." The city's companion Asphalt Shingle Roofing Guidelines handout (prepared by City of Yankton Building Services, dated 02-2025) restates this as a code and city-ordinance requirement: "Maximum two (2) layers of shingles. Removal of existing roof coverings is required if the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or deteriorated to the point of being inadequate as a base for additional roofing or if the existing roof is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos cement tile."
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Tennessee (18)
City of Bartlett, Tennessee - Code Enforcement (City of Bartlett, Tennessee)
The City of Bartlett adopts the 2018 International Residential Code as its residential code (City Code Title 12, Section 12-1101). The codified local amendments to that chapter (read in full) modify only definitions, administrative procedure, and permit fees -- they do not touch Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, so the base 2018 IRC provisions on roof re-covering and layer limits apply unmodified as adopted by the city. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Brentwood, Tennessee - Planning and Codes Department (City of Brentwood, Williamson County, Tennessee)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Brentwood adopts the 2018 International Residential Code and its Municipal Code Chapter 14 was read in full - roughly a hundred thousand characters covering adoption, administration, permits, fees, seal exemptions, inspections and the local modification list. It contains no amendment to section R908 or to any part of the roof assemblies chapter, so the adopted code text governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2018 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. TENNESSEE PUTS A FLOOR UNDER THIS THAT IS WORTH KNOWING: the statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval. A Tennessee jurisdiction may therefore be stricter than the two-layer rule but cannot be more permissive than it.
City of Chattanooga Land Development Office (City of Chattanooga, Tennessee)
The City of Chattanooga adopts the 2018 International Residential Code (Code of Ordinances Sec. 10-1). Its local amendment ordinance (Sec. 10-3, read in full, ten lettered items a. through j.) does not touch Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, so the base 2018 IRC provisions on roof recover/re-covering and layer limits apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Clarksville Building & Codes Department (City of Clarksville, Tennessee)
The City of Clarksville's residential-code amendments (Code of Ordinances Sec. 4-801, current through Ord. No. 40-2020-21, read in full) do not amend Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, of the 2018 IRC. No provision addressing the number of roof-covering layers permitted appears among the city's local amendments, so the base 2018 IRC Chapter 9 provisions on this subject apply unmodified within the city. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Franklin Building & Neighborhood Services (City of Franklin, Tennessee)
Franklin adopts the 2024 IRC as its residential code (Municipal Code sec. 12-1001). Its local amendment section, sec. 12-1002, read there in full (12 numbered items), does not touch Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, where the base IRC's roof-recover/replacement layer limit provisions live. So the base 2024 IRC provisions on roof layer limits apply unmodified in Franklin. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Gallatin, Tennessee - Building Codes Department (City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Gallatin adopts the 2024 International Residential Code, and its local amendment list was read in full: Article III of Municipal Code Chapter 5 sets out the building standards, and section 5-59, Amendments to International Residential Code, contains exactly three items - a note that current permit fee schedules are available from the Building Codes Department, a change to the minimum fire separation distance in Table R302.1(1) from five feet to six feet with a footnote barring projections within three feet of a property line, and a replacement of the one- and two-family sprinkler section requiring residential sprinklers where the separation between structures is twelve feet or less. None of the three touches roofing, and there is no amendment to section R908 or to any part of the roof assemblies chapter. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2024 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. TENNESSEE PUTS A FLOOR UNDER THIS THAT IS WORTH KNOWING: the statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval. A Tennessee jurisdiction may therefore be stricter than the two-layer rule but cannot be more permissive than it.
City of Hendersonville, Tennessee - Codes Department (City of Hendersonville, Sumner County, Tennessee)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Hendersonville adopts the 2021 International Residential Code, and Title 12 of its Municipal Code was read in full - some sixty thousand characters covering the building, residential, plumbing, gas, mechanical, energy and property maintenance provisions. It contains no amendment to section R908 or to any part of the roof assemblies chapter, so the adopted code text governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2021 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. TENNESSEE PUTS A FLOOR UNDER THIS THAT IS WORTH KNOWING: the statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval. A Tennessee jurisdiction may therefore be stricter than the two-layer rule but cannot be more permissive than it.
City of Jackson, Tennessee - Building and Housing Codes Department (City of Jackson, Tennessee)
The City of Jackson adopts the 2018 IRC (Code of Ordinances Section 12-1001, Ord. #2021-7, June 2021; amended by Ord. #2024-16, May 2024). The city's own amendment text at Section 12-1001, read in full, amends only electrical chapters (deleted in favor of the state electrical standard), one smoke-alarm exception, and residential energy-code tables; it does not touch IRC Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies. The city's separately published Construction Guide (Building and Housing Codes Department), whose own fuller "Amendments to the Adopted Codes" section was also read in full, likewise shows no amendment to Chapter 9. So the base 2018 IRC provision on roof layer limits, IRC Section R908.3, applies unmodified in Jackson. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Johnson City Building Division (City of Johnson City, Tennessee)
The City of Johnson City adopts the 2018 IRC by reference under City Code Section 12-301(2). That adopting/amending provision, read in full, amends only fire sprinklers, electrical installations, smoke alarm power source, and energy efficiency; it does not touch Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies). The base 2018 IRC's roof recover/replacement layer provisions therefore apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Kingsport, Tennessee - Building and Codes Division (City of Kingsport, Sullivan and Hawkins Counties, Tennessee)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Kingsport adopts the 2018 International Residential Code at City Code section 22-96, and Article III of Chapter 22, which carries the adoption and the whole of the city amendment list for both the building and the residential code, was read in full. It contains no amendment to section R908 or to any part of the roof assemblies chapter, so the adopted code text governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2018 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. TENNESSEE PUTS A FLOOR UNDER THIS THAT IS WORTH KNOWING: the statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval. A Tennessee jurisdiction may therefore be stricter than the two-layer rule but cannot be more permissive than it.
City of Knoxville Plans Review and Inspections (City of Knoxville, Tennessee)
The City of Knoxville adopts the 2024 IRC as part of its 2024 I-Code update package, Ordinance No. O-125-2024 (effective 2025-01-01). The city's own amendment section, Code of Ordinances Sec. 6-42 (Article IIA, Residential Building Code, Amendments), read there in full, amends only Chapter 1 (Scope and Administration -- renaming the enforcement agency, liability, demolition-delay and permit-fee provisions), Chapter 3 (Building Planning -- Table R301.2(1) climatic and geographic design criteria, Section 309, and the smoke-alarm provision at R314.6), and the energy-efficiency chapter (Sections N1102 and N1103). It does not touch Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, or any roof-covering or reroofing provision. So the base 2024 IRC provision on roof layer limits, IRC Section R908.3, applies unmodified in Knoxville. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Murfreesboro Building and Codes Department (City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee)
The City of Murfreesboro adopts the 2018 IRC by Ordinance 18-O-71. The ordinance's complete, self-contained list of local IRC amendments (items A through RR of Section 4, read in full), together with the rest of the 15-section ordinance, does not touch Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) or any roof-covering provision -- its IRC amendments instead reach only administrative/permit-exemption sections, Table R301.2(1) (climatic and geographic design criteria), exterior wall setbacks, opening protection, means of egress from bedrooms, fire sprinkler and accessibility provisions, energy-code Chapter 11 and its tables, and various plumbing/gas sections. Because Chapter 9 is untouched, the base 2018 IRC's own roof-recover/roof-replacement layer provision, IRC Section R908.3, applies unmodified in Murfreesboro. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
City of Spring Hill, Tennessee - Building Codes and Inspection Department (City of Spring Hill, Maury and Williamson Counties, Tennessee)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. THE EDITION QUESTION DESCRIBED IN THE ADOPTED CODE ENTRY DOES NOT AFFECT THIS ANSWER, WHICH IS WHY IT CAN BE STATED PLAINLY: the two candidate editions are the 2018 and the 2024 International Residential Code, and both bar a roof recover "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" - the 2018 edition at section R908.3.1.1 and the 2024 edition in the Exceptions block closing section R908.4. The city's own modifications were read in full and amend the permit exemptions, wall and floor framing, foundation drainage, attic access, roof pitch, chimneys, insulation and the energy tables; none of them amends section R908 or any other part of the roof assemblies chapter. The other two bars apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile.
Knox County, Tennessee - Codes Administration (Knox County, Tennessee)
Knox County adopts the 2018 IRC by Ordinance O-18-10-101. Neither the county's IRC amendments document nor its "Significant Changes" summary (both read in full) amends any Chapter 9 roof-recover or roof- replacement layer provision, so the base 2018 IRC provisions on this point apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2018 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee - Department of Codes and Building Safety (Codes Administration) (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee)
Metro Nashville and Davidson County adopts the 2024 IRC via Metro Council Ordinance BL2025-898 (Metropolitan Code of Laws Title 16, ch. 16.08, Sec. 16.08.014, Amendments to the 2024 International Residential Code). The ordinance's complete, self-contained list of local IRC amendments (items A through P), read in full, does not touch Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) or any roof-covering provision -- its amendments instead reach only administrative sections, definitions, Table R301.2 (climatic and geographic design criteria), fire protection of floors, address identification, townhouse sprinklers, smoke alarms, a new house-moving section, footings, and energy-code tables. Because Chapter 9 is untouched, the base 2024 IRC's own roof-recover/roof-replacement layer provisions apply unmodified within Nashville and Davidson County. Base-code rule, read at 2024 IRC Section R908.4 (Roof recover), Exceptions and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Shelby County, Tennessee - Division of Planning and Development, Construction Code Enforcement (Shelby County, Tennessee)
Shelby County's own "Policy for Roof Installations" does not state a flat layer-count number itself: "How many layers of roof can I have on my house before I am required to remove existing layers? This depends entirely on-site specific circumstances and the materials used," and points installers to "IRC 2021 Section 1512.2.1" for additional direction (a pointer only -- that base-code section was not independently on record). Base-code rule, read at 2021 IRC Section R908.3.1.1 (Roof recover not allowed) and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: a roof recover "shall not be permitted" where "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" (nor where the existing covering is water soaked or deteriorated, or is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile). One existing layer may therefore be recovered; a second existing layer forces tear-off to the deck.
Town of Collierville, Tennessee - Building and Codes Division (Town of Collierville, Shelby County, Tennessee)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Collierville adopts the 2018 International Residential Code at section 150.070 of Ordinance 2020-06, and the whole of that ordinance was read - twenty-nine pages covering the building, plumbing, mechanical, residential, energy, fire and property maintenance amendments. It contains no amendment to section R908 or to any part of the roof assemblies chapter, so the adopted code text governs unchanged. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2018 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. TENNESSEE PUTS A FLOOR UNDER THIS THAT IS WORTH KNOWING: the statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval. A Tennessee jurisdiction may therefore be stricter than the two-layer rule but cannot be more permissive than it.
Town of Smyrna, Tennessee - Building Safety Department (Town of Smyrna, Rutherford County, Tennessee)
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Smyrna adopts the 2024 International Residential Code and publishes its modifications line by line; they were read in full and touch the permit exemptions, the climatic and geographic design criteria, flood provisions, certificates of occupancy and a handful of definitions. None of them amends section R908 or any part of the roof assemblies chapter, so the adopted code text governs unchanged. In the 2024 edition the operative provision is section R908.4, Roof recover, whose closing Exceptions block carries the same three bars the earlier editions state at R908.3.1.1. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2024 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. TENNESSEE PUTS A FLOOR UNDER THIS THAT IS WORTH KNOWING: the statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval. A Tennessee jurisdiction may therefore be stricter than the two-layer rule but cannot be more permissive than it. Note that this rule governs the work itself and is unaffected by the fact that Smyrna requires no permit for a straightforward roof covering replacement.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Texas (6)
City of Austin Development Services Department (DSD) (City of Austin, Texas)
Austin's own § 25-12-243 (Ordinance No. 20250410-040, executed ordinance read in full, all 10 pages) does not amend Section R908 (Reroofing) at all -- the only R900-range additions in the ordinance are R905.7.4/R905.8.5 (wood shingle/shake material standards), unrelated to reroofing scope. Note the edition change: the 2024 IRC (which Austin adopted) restructured Chapter 9's reroofing sections relative to the 2021 IRC -- the "roof recover not allowed" conditions that sat at R908.3.1.1 in the 2021 IRC now sit at R908.4 in the 2024 IRC, and a new R908.3 "Roof Replacement" section was added ahead of it. Confirmed against up.codes' Austin-specific 2024 IRC viewer, which shows no local-amendment marker on either section: "R908.3 Roof Replacement. Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck." (with exceptions permitting an existing adhered ice-barrier membrane or self-adhered underlayment to remain under stated conditions) and "R908.4 Roof Recover. The installation of a new roof covering over an existing roof covering shall be permitted where any of the following conditions occur... Exceptions: A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: [1] Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for the additional roofing. [2] Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. [3] Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." These three disqualifying conditions are unchanged in substance from the 2021 IRC's R908.3.1.1 -- only the section number moved, from R908.3.1.1 to R908.4, and Austin's own ordinance does not touch either the old or new numbering. Re-grounded on the City's own codified instrument: Land Development Code § 25-12-241 adopts the 2024 International Residential Code subject to the deletions it lists and the amendments in § 25-12-243, and Article 11 of Chapter 25-12, read in full as codified through Ordinance No. 20260122-059, carries no provision at Section R908 at all. Its only R900-range provisions are R902.2, R905.7.4 and R905.8.5, all wood shingle and shake material standards. The up.codes viewer is cited above as corroboration only; the claim rests on the City's own code.
City of DeSoto - Building Inspections Division (City of DeSoto, Texas)
Base 2021 IRC R908.3.1.1 "Roof recover not allowed" (unamended by DeSoto): "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Note: the base 2021 IRC has only these THREE conditions — it does NOT include the fourth "one or more application of asphalt shingles" condition that Oklahoma's OUBCC amendment adds; DeSoto's unamended baseline is the plain ICC text.
City of Garland - Building Inspection (City of Garland, Texas)
"Per the 2015 edition of the International residential Code all roofs are allowed up to two layers of shingles. If a third layer is needed, you must tear off the existing layers and start over." (City of Garland Building Inspection, Re-Roofing page.)
City of McKinney - Building Inspections (City of McKinney, Texas)
"New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." Exceptions: complete/separate roofing systems (e.g. standing-seam metal) that transmit roof loads directly to the structure do not require removal of existing coverings; a new protective coating over existing spray polyurethane foam roofing is permitted without tear-off; an existing ice barrier membrane adhered to the deck may remain in place and be covered with an additional layer of ice barrier membrane. (McKinney Roofing Guide, "Minimum Requirements for Re-Roofing Projects," effective January 7, 2020; work shall comply with the 2024 IRC per the current guide header.)
City of North Richland Hills - Building Inspection Department (City of North Richland Hills, Texas)
"Please be aware that only 2 layers of shingles are allowed on the roof. We will require all shingles to be removed if more than 2 layers exist when the final inspection is performed." (City of North Richland Hills Building Inspections & Permits FAQ, "Do I need a permit to re-roof a home or commercial building?")
City of San Antonio Development Services Department (DSD) (City of San Antonio, Texas)
Base 2024 IRC R908.4 "Roof recover" (unamended by San Antonio -- the city's amendment ordinance contains no R908 amendment). Note: the IRC renumbered this provision between the 2021 and 2024 editions -- the 2021 edition's separately-labeled "R908.3.1.1 Roof recover not allowed" is, in the 2024 edition, an unlabeled "Exceptions" clause attached directly to R908.4 Roof recover. The operative 2024 text (as published at codes.iccsafe.org) reads: "Exceptions: A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for the additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." (Same three substantive conditions as the 2021 edition, with only minor non-substantive wording differences -- e.g. "the additional roofing" vs. "additional roofing.") This is the base ICC text, not an Oklahoma-style locally-added fourth condition; no such condition appears in San Antonio's own ordinance.
One overlay allowed — two layers maximum — Wisconsin (3)
City of Green Bay, Wisconsin - Department of Community & Economic Development, Inspection Division (Building Permits & Inspections) (City of Green Bay, Wisconsin)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET -- the rule is the same in Green Bay as everywhere else in Wisconsin, for the one- and two-family dwellings the Uniform Dwelling Code reaches -- which is not all of them; read SCOPE below before applying it to an older house. Wis. Admin. Code § SPS 321.28(6) prohibits re-covering (i.e., forces a full tear-off) when any of the following is true: the existing roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing; the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile; or the existing roof already has two or more applications of roofing. Practical effect: at most one overlay over one existing layer, for a maximum of two total applications of roofing, and only when the existing covering is sound and is not shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile. Green Bay cannot impose a different layer limit for a one- or two-family dwelling (Wis. Stat. § 101.65(1c)). SCOPE -- the Uniform Dwelling Code does not reach every dwelling, and the rule above governs only the ones it does reach. Wis. Admin. Code SPS 320.05(1) provides that the code "shall not apply to dwellings and dwelling units, the construction of which was commenced prior to the effective date of this code, or to additions or alterations to such dwellings." SPS 320.03 fixes that effective date for chs. SPS 320, 321, 323, 324 and 325 at June 1, 1980. The enabling statute states the cutoff differently: Wis. Stat. 101.615 applies the subchapter to "a dwelling the initial construction of which was commenced on or after December 1, 1978." The two instruments do not agree, and both are reported here rather than one being chosen. A municipality may close the gap itself -- the note to SPS 320.05(1) states that chs. SPS 320 to 325 "may be adopted by a municipality to apply to any additions or alterations to existing dwellings" -- and whether Green Bay has done so is NOT established by this record. Separately, SPS 320.05(3) provides that the code does "not apply to repairs or maintenance to dwellings or dwelling units," and SPS 320.07(61) defines "repair" to include "the replacement of existing fixtures, systems or equipment with the equivalent" fixture, system or equipment, which is a fair description of a like-for-like tear-off and replacement -- while SPS 321.28(6) regulates reroofing by name. Those two provisions are in genuine tension; this record states both and does not adjudicate between them. On a dwelling built before 1980, or on a like-for-like replacement, confirm scope with the City of Green Bay Inspection Division before relying on the layer rule.
City of Madison, Wisconsin - Department of Planning, Community & Economic Development, Building Inspection Division (City of Madison, Wisconsin)
STATE-GOVERNED, NOT CITY-SET (Wis. Stat. s. 101.65(1c) bars Madison from a differing dwelling ordinance). Wis. Admin. Code s. SPS 321.28(6) governs reroofing of one- and two-family dwellings: new roof coverings may not be installed over an existing roof covering where any of the following conditions exist - (a) the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated such that it is inadequate as a base for additional roofing; (b) the existing roof is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile; or (c) the existing roof has 2 or more applications of any type of permanent roof covering. Practical effect: at most one recover (overlay) over one existing layer is permitted, so a roof already carrying two layers must be torn off completely; wood shake, slate, clay, cement and asbestos-cement tile may never be recovered regardless of layer count. SCOPE -- the Uniform Dwelling Code does not reach every dwelling, and the rule above governs only the ones it does reach. Wis. Admin. Code SPS 320.05(1) provides that the code "shall not apply to dwellings and dwelling units, the construction of which was commenced prior to the effective date of this code, or to additions or alterations to such dwellings." SPS 320.03 fixes that effective date for chs. SPS 320, 321, 323, 324 and 325 at June 1, 1980. The enabling statute states the cutoff differently: Wis. Stat. 101.615 applies the subchapter to "a dwelling the initial construction of which was commenced on or after December 1, 1978." The two instruments do not agree, and both are reported here rather than one being chosen. A municipality may close the gap itself -- the note to SPS 320.05(1) states that chs. SPS 320 to 325 "may be adopted by a municipality to apply to any additions or alterations to existing dwellings" -- and whether Madison has done so is NOT established by this record. Separately, SPS 320.05(3) provides that the code does "not apply to repairs or maintenance to dwellings or dwelling units," and SPS 320.07(61) defines "repair" to include "the replacement of existing fixtures, systems or equipment with the equivalent" fixture, system or equipment, which is a fair description of a like-for-like tear-off and replacement -- while SPS 321.28(6) regulates reroofing by name. Those two provisions are in genuine tension; this record states both and does not adjudicate between them. On a dwelling built before 1980, or on a like-for-like replacement, confirm scope with the City of Madison Building Inspection Division before relying on the layer rule.
City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin - Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS) (City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
Governed statewide, not set by Milwaukee: Wis. Admin. Code SPS 321.28(6) prohibits installing a new roof covering over an existing one on a 1-2 family dwelling where any of the following is true -- (a) the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated such that it is inadequate as a base for additional roofing; (b) the existing roof is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile; or (c) the existing roof already has 2 or more applications of any type of permanent roof covering. Practical effect: at most one recover (overlay) over one existing layer is allowed, so a roof already carrying two layers must be torn off completely, and wood shake, slate, clay, cement and asbestos-cement tile roofs may never be recovered regardless of layer count. Wis. Stat. 101.65(1c) bars Milwaukee from setting a different layer limit for 1-2 family dwellings. SCOPE -- the Uniform Dwelling Code does not reach every dwelling, and the rule above governs only the ones it does reach. Wis. Admin. Code SPS 320.05(1) provides that the code "shall not apply to dwellings and dwelling units, the construction of which was commenced prior to the effective date of this code, or to additions or alterations to such dwellings." SPS 320.03 fixes that effective date for chs. SPS 320, 321, 323, 324 and 325 at June 1, 1980. The enabling statute states the cutoff differently: Wis. Stat. 101.615 applies the subchapter to "a dwelling the initial construction of which was commenced on or after December 1, 1978." The two instruments do not agree, and both are reported here rather than one being chosen. A municipality may close the gap itself -- the note to SPS 320.05(1) states that chs. SPS 320 to 325 "may be adopted by a municipality to apply to any additions or alterations to existing dwellings" -- and whether Milwaukee has done so is NOT established by this record. Separately, SPS 320.05(3) provides that the code does "not apply to repairs or maintenance to dwellings or dwelling units," and SPS 320.07(61) defines "repair" to include "the replacement of existing fixtures, systems or equipment with the equivalent" fixture, system or equipment, which is a fair description of a like-for-like tear-off and replacement -- while SPS 321.28(6) regulates reroofing by name. Those two provisions are in genuine tension; this record states both and does not adjudicate between them. On a dwelling built before 1980, or on a like-for-like replacement, confirm scope with the City of Milwaukee Development Center before relying on the layer rule.
Three layers allowed — Texas (1)
Overlay allowed only on a stated condition — Colorado (10)
City of Golden - Building Division (City of Golden, Colorado)
"Only one overlay is allowed on existing asphalt or wood shingles. T-Lock shingles cannot be overlaid. The total weight of the combined roof layers must not exceed 750 pounds per square unless verified by a structural analysis." Separately: "If a repair exceeds 25% of the total roof area, the entire roof must be replaced. Roof replacement shall include the removal of all existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck." (IRC 2024 R908.3 and IBC 2024 1512.2, per the city's Roofing and Re-Roof Covering Requirements summary.)
City of Ouray Community Development - Building Services (City of Ouray, Colorado)
Two existing layers normally force a full tear-off, but Ouray writes in a metal-panel exception. The City amends the roof-cover-not-allowed provision so that a new covering may not go over an existing roof "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering unless the third covering is metal panels and appropriate length fasteners are used." So a third layer is permitted in metal panels and in nothing else. The City separately adds a requirement that attic ventilation on a reroof comply with the roof ventilation section.
Jackson County Building Inspector (Jackson County, Colorado)
Jackson County's amendment to the 2018 International Residential Code, Section R907.3, Recovering Versus Replacement, requires removal of all existing roof covering layers before a new covering is installed if any of the following apply: the existing roof or covering is water- soaked or too deteriorated to serve as a base for additional roofing; the existing covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos- cement tile; the existing roof already has more than one application of any type of roof covering; or, for asphalt shingles, the building is located in an area the county's hail map, Figure R903.5, shows as subject to moderate or severe hail damage. Where none of those conditions applies, a new covering may be installed over the existing one.
Town of Coal Creek - Building Permits & Inspections (Town of Coal Creek, Colorado)
Coal Creek adopted the 2006 International Residential Code by reference at Municipal Code section 6.08.010, and Chapter 6's only textual amendments are name insertions that do not touch the roofing chapters, so the base 2006 IRC governs a reroof here unmodified. That edition's rule is 2006 IRC Section R907.3, Re-covering versus replacement, quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: new roof coverings "shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur," and the conditions are that the existing roof or covering "is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing"; that "the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile"; that "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering"; and a fourth condition that the 2006 and 2009 editions carry and that the 2015 and later editions do not, "For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or severe hail exposure according to Figure R903.5." Because that hail condition can require a full tear-off over a SINGLE existing layer, no layer count states the rule here. Whether a given building sits in a moderate or severe hail exposure area under Figure R903.5 is a per-location fact that this record does not establish. Two exceptions travel with the section: a complete and separate roofing system such as a standing-seam metal roof that does not rely on the existing roof for support, and metal panel, metal shingle, concrete or clay tile installed over an existing wood shake roof under Section R907.4.
Town of Granby - Building Department (Town of Granby, Colorado)
The town's 2021 IRC amendment ordinance (Chapter 15.05.050, read in full) amends Section R907.3 Re-Covering Versus Replacement: a new roof covering may not be installed over an existing one without first removing all existing roof-covering layers where the existing roof or covering is water-soaked or too deteriorated to serve as a base, where the existing covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile, where the existing roof already carries more than one application of any roof covering, or, for asphalt shingles, where the building sits in a moderate- or severe-hail area under IRC Figure R903.5.
Town of Grand Lake - Building Permits (Grand County Building Department) (Town of Grand Lake, Colorado)
Grand County's 2015 local amendments, adopted by the Town at Municipal Code Sec. 9-1-2(B), amend Section R908.3, Recovering versus replacement, to read: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or MORE THAN ONE applications of any type of roof covering. 4. For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to severe hail damage according to Figure R903.5." The capitalisation is the County's own, marking amended text, and condition 3 is drafted as quoted. This is a four-condition tear-off rule rather than a simple layer cap: condition 4 can require a full tear-off for asphalt shingles on a single existing layer, independent of layer count.
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs (Grand County Building Department) (Town of Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado)
Which rule governs depends on an unresolved question about Grand County's own adoption, so both branches are stated. Grand County's Codes & Amendments page says "Grand County has adopted 2021 Building Codes and the 2025 Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code with Local Amendments, effective July 1, 2026," and then heads a list of 2015 codes with "The following codes are currently in effect within the county." Both statements appear on the page at once. UNDER THE 2015 PACKAGE, Grand County amends IRC Section R908.3, Recovering versus replacement, to read: "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or MORE THAN ONE applications of any type of roof covering. 4. For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to severe hail damage according to Figure R903.5." (The capitalisation is the County's own, marking amended text; condition 3 is drafted as quoted.) Condition 4 means a tear-off can be required for asphalt shingles on the first layer, independent of layer count. UNDER THE 2021 PACKAGE, the County's local amendments contain no amendment to R908 at all, so the base 2021 IRC governs: Section R908.3 provides that "Roof replacement shall include the removal of existing layers of roof coverings down to the roof deck," and Section R908.3.1.1 that "A roof recover shall not be permitted where any of the following conditions occur: ... 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." The two branches differ, so no single layer count is asserted here; confirm with the Grand County Building Department which package applies to the permit at hand.
Town of Log Lane Village Building Inspector (Town of Log Lane Village, Colorado)
The Town adopted the 2009 IRC by reference (Sec. 6-29(3)) and its own itemized amendment list at Sec. 6-29(4) does not touch Chapter 9, Roof Assemblies, so the base 2009 IRC governs a reroof here unmodified. Section R907.3, Recovering versus replacement, quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall, provides that new roof coverings "shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur," and lists four. The existing roof or covering "is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing"; "the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile"; "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering"; and, fourth, "For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or severe hail exposure according to Figure R903.5." That fourth condition is carried by the 2006 and 2009 editions and by no edition after them, and because it can require a full tear-off over a SINGLE existing layer, no layer count states the rule here. Whether a given building sits in a moderate or severe hail exposure area under Figure R903.5 is a per-location fact that this record does not establish. Two exceptions travel with the section: a complete and separate roofing system such as a standing-seam metal roof that does not rely on the existing roof for support, and metal panel, metal shingle, concrete or clay tile installed over an existing wood shake roof under Section R907.4.
Town of Mancos - Building Department (Town of Mancos, Colorado)
The Town adopts the 2006 IRC by reference at Sec. 18-2-10 of the Municipal Code, and Article 2 of Chapter 18 (its entire text, read in full) makes no local amendments — Sec. 18-2-30 states "The code adopted herein is hereby modified by the following amendments: none." So the base 2006 IRC provisions on the number of roof-covering layers permitted apply unmodified in Mancos. Base-code rule, read at 2006 IRC Section R907.3 and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: new roof coverings "shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings" where, among other conditions, "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" OR -- a fourth condition that the 2006 edition carries and the 2015 and later editions do not -- "for asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or severe hail exposure according to Figure R903.5." Because that hail condition can require a full tear-off over a SINGLE existing layer, no layer count states the rule here. Whether a given building sits in a moderate or severe hail exposure area under Figure R903.5 is a per-location fact that this record does not establish.
Town of Superior - Planning and Building Department (Town of Superior, Colorado)
"A single roof overlay is allowed provided an engineer's report stating the roof structure is adequate to support the additional loading and the shingles meet the current code requirements." (Separately, "[t]ile roofs replacing other types of roof covering must have an engineer's report stating the roof structure is adequate to support the additional loading.")
Overlay allowed only on a stated condition — Iowa (2)
City of Council Bluffs, Iowa - Building Division (City of Council Bluffs, Iowa)
The City of Council Bluffs adopts the 2009 International Residential Code by reference at Municipal Code Sec. 13.06.010 (Ordinance 6100). Ordinance 6100's full amendment section (Municipal Code Sec. 13.06.020 through Sec. 13.06.403.1.4.1, read in full) does not touch IRC Chapter 9 (Roof Assemblies) except to add a roof-drainage/downspout provision (Sec. 13.06.375); it does not address roof covering layer limits, so the base IRC provisions on roof recovering and layer limits apply unmodified. Base-code rule, read at 2009 IRC Section R907.3 and quoted here rather than left behind the ICC paywall: new roof coverings "shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings" where, among other conditions, "the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" OR -- a fourth condition that the 2009 edition carries and the 2015 and later editions do not -- "for asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or severe hail exposure according to Figure R903.5." Because that hail condition can require a full tear-off over a SINGLE existing layer, no layer count states the rule here. Whether a given building sits in a moderate or severe hail exposure area under Figure R903.5 is a per-location fact that this record does not establish.
City of Fort Dodge, Iowa - Building Safety (City of Fort Dodge, Webster County, Iowa)
FORT DODGE HAS REWRITTEN THE MODEL RULE, AND THE EFFECT IS THAT AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF CANNOT BE RECOVERED HERE AT ALL. Municipal Code section 14.04.040, in its list of amendments to the International Residential Code, provides at item (7): "Delete Section 908.3.1.1 condition 3 and replace with 'where the existing roof covering is asphalt shingles, wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos - cement tile." In the unamended code, section R908.3.1.1 lists three conditions under which a roof recover is not permitted, and the third of them is "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering" - a count of layers. Fort Dodge deletes that count and puts a test of the existing covering material in its place. So the number of layers already on the roof stops mattering here and the material starts: where the covering in place is asphalt shingles, which is the ordinary residential case, a recover is not permitted and the existing covering has to come off even if there is only one layer of it. Wood shake, slate, clay, cement and asbestos-cement tile are barred on the same footing. A recover remains available over a covering that is none of those, subject to the conditions the amendment leaves standing, including a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing. Because the governing test is the material rather than a layer count, no single number states this rule.
Overlay allowed only on a stated condition — Nebraska (2)
City of La Vista - Building Department (City of La Vista, Nebraska)
La Vista Municipal Code § 150.01(C)(2)(j), "Re-covering versus replacement" (adopted in lieu of IRC § R908.1): "New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur: 1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing. 2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, wood shingles, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. 3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering. 4. For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or severe hail exposure according to § R905.1." Exceptions: "a. Complete and separate roofing systems, such as standing-seam metal roof systems, that are designed to transmit the roof loads directly to the building's structural system and that do not rely on existing roofs and roof coverings for support, shall not require the removal of existing roof coverings. b. Installation of metal panel, metal shingle, and concrete and clay tile roof coverings over existing wood shake roofs shall be permitted when the application is in accordance with § R908.4. c. The application of new protective coating over existing spray polyurethane foam roofing systems shall be permitted without tear-off of existing roof coverings." (Ord. 1439, passed 2-1-22.)
Sarpy County Planning & Building Department (Sarpy County, Nebraska)
Resolution 2024-150, Exhibit B (amending the 2018 IRC), adds to "R907.3 Re-covering versus replacement" condition number 4: "For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or severe hail exposure according to Figure R903.5" -- an added trigger requiring full tear-off/replacement rather than re-covering over existing asphalt shingles in the county's hail-exposure areas. (Resolution 2024-150, effective 6-4-2024.)
No local layer cap stated — Colorado (4)
Delta County Planning and Community Development (Delta County, Colorado)
Outside the Highway 92 and Highway 50 Overlay Districts, Delta County has not adopted building codes for the unincorporated area, so no county-enforced limit on the number of roof covering layers applies there. Within the two overlay districts, development is subject to the 2003 International Building Code (Resolution 2006-R-016 for Highway 92; Ordinance 2009-01 and Resolution 2009-R-055 for Highway 50); this record does not characterize the 2003 IBC's own provisions on roof covering layers.
Saguache County Land Use Office (Saguache County, Colorado)
Saguache County has not adopted a building code. The county's Land Use FAQ states plainly that the county "does not have building codes," and Article XIII of the 2025 Land Development Code (effective November 18, 2025, read in full, Article XIII-1 through XIII-7) -- the county's only construction-permit process, applying to "ALL structures or dwellings" in the unincorporated county -- contains no IRC/IBC adoption and no provision on the number of roof-covering layers. No county-enforced layer limit applies.
Town of Saguache Building Site Permits (Town of Saguache, Colorado)
The Town of Saguache's codified Municipal Code — all twelve substantive chapters, read in full, current through Ordinance No. 2023-2 — contains no adopted IBC/IRC edition and no chapter addresses a limit on the number of roof-covering layers permitted before a full tear-off is required.
Town of Stratton - Building Permits (Town of Stratton, Colorado)
The Town of Stratton has not adopted the IRC or any general residential building code; its only adopted construction code is the 2025 Colorado Wildfire Resiliency Code (Ordinance No. 94B, read in full together with the code text it adopts by reference). That code sets no limit on the number of roof-covering layers; its only layer-related roof-covering provision is an optional flame- and ember-protection method for existing roof decks (Section 403.2.1), not a restriction on shingle layers.
No local layer cap stated — Kansas (4)
City of Andover Building & Inspections Department (City of Andover, Kansas)
Sec. 2.4.560 of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Building and Trade Code (Article 2, Section 4): "Re-covering versus replacement. Section R907.3 of the International Residential Code is hereby deleted." No substitute or replacement provision is enacted in its place. The UBTC does not separately amend IRC R908 (roof replacement/layer-count), so the base 2018 IRC R908 provisions govern by default (not locally amended, not quoted here).
City of Haysville - Public Works Department (City of Haysville, Kansas)
Sec. 4-309 of the Code of the City of Haysville, Kansas: "Those provisions of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Building and Trade Code, as adopted through Article 12 below, applicable to the Residential Building Code are found in Article 2, Section 4 of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Building and Trade Code, except as supplemented herein." Haysville's own Sec. 4-310 supplement does not independently address roof recover/replacement (no R907 provision appears in it), so Haysville inherits Sec. 2.4.560 of the county UBTC by incorporation: "Re-covering versus replacement. Section R907.3 of the International Residential Code is hereby deleted," with no replacement provision enacted.
City of Wichita - Metropolitan Area Building & Construction Department (MABCD) (City of Wichita, Kansas)
Sec. 2.4.560 of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Building and Trade Code (Article 2, Section 4): "Re-covering versus replacement. Section R907.3 of the International Residential Code is hereby deleted." No substitute or replacement provision is enacted in its place. The UBTC does not separately amend IRC R908 (roof replacement/layer-count), so the base 2018 IRC R908 provisions govern by default (not locally amended, not quoted here).
Sedgwick County - Metropolitan Area Building & Construction Department (MABCD) (Sedgwick County, Kansas (unincorporated))
Sec. 2.4.560 of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Unified Building and Trade Code (Article 2, Section 4): "Re-covering versus replacement. Section R907.3 of the International Residential Code is hereby deleted." No substitute or replacement provision is enacted in its place. The UBTC does not separately amend IRC R908 (roof replacement/layer-count), so the base 2018 IRC R908 provisions govern by default (not locally amended, not quoted here).
No local layer cap stated — Tennessee (1)
No local layer cap stated — Texas (2)
Denton County - Development Services (Denton County, Texas)
Denton County has adopted no building code that reaches reroofing an existing single-family home. Its Fire Code, the 2021 International Fire and Building Code, carves those homes out of its own scope at Section 101.2, Exception 1, which provides that one- and two-family dwellings and townhomes of not more than two attached units "shall comply with Local Government Code 233 Subchapter F 'Residential Building Code'" instead. Subchapter F in turn reaches only new residential construction, which Texas Local Government Code Section 233.151 defines as a single-family house or duplex built on a vacant lot, or an addition increasing an existing home's square footage or value by more than 50 percent. Ordinary roof repair and replacement is neither. No county instrument limits the number of roof covering layers for that work. Note that under Texas Local Government Code Section 233.153(c) a municipality's own building code controls inside that municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction, so a home in an ETJ may be governed by a city's code rather than by the county.
Travis County Development Services (Transportation and Natural Resources) (Travis County, Texas)
NO COUNTY CAP STATED. Travis County's residential construction authority runs through Travis County Code Chapter 480, Residential Construction Standards, which was read in full and which sets no roof-covering, roof-layer or reroofing provision of any kind - the chapter does not mention roofs at all, and it does not use the word permit anywhere. Texas counties hold far narrower building-regulation authority than Texas municipalities, and nothing in the County's code supplies a limit on how many layers of roof covering may remain on a house in unincorporated Travis County. A roofer working inside a municipality's limits or its extraterritorial jurisdiction should look to that municipality's code instead.
Unclassified — see each jurisdiction's quoted rule — Colorado (1)
Unclassified — see each jurisdiction's quoted rule — Iowa (1)
Unclassified — see each jurisdiction's quoted rule — Tennessee (2)
Montgomery County, Tennessee - Building and Codes Department (Montgomery County, Tennessee (outside Clarksville city limits))
Two layers maximum - one overlay is permitted, and a second existing layer requires a tear-off. Montgomery County adopts the 2018 International Residential Code by its Resolution of October 12, 2020. THE COUNTY AMENDMENT LIST WAS NOT READ FOR THIS ENTRY, so what follows is the adopted code text and the floor the state puts under it, rather than a confirmation that the County leaves the provision alone; a stricter local rule would not show up here. Section R908.3.1.1 of the 2018 International Residential Code provides that a roof recover shall not be permitted where any of three conditions occur, the third being "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." One existing layer may be recovered; a second forces removal. The other two conditions apply whatever the layer count: a covering that is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that it is not an adequate base for additional roofing, and a covering of slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile. TENNESSEE PUTS A FLOOR UNDER THIS THAT IS WORTH KNOWING: the statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval. A Tennessee jurisdiction may therefore be stricter than the two-layer rule but cannot be more permissive than it.
Rutherford County, Tennessee - Building Codes Department (Rutherford County, Tennessee (unincorporated))
No Tennessee jurisdiction may permit more than two layers, and Rutherford County has not published anything that would make it stricter - but its own adopted edition could not be established, so no classification is asserted here. What can be said rests on state law rather than on a county document. The statewide minimum for one- and two-family dwellings is the 2018 International Residential Code, and Tenn. Comp. R. and Regs. 0780-02-23-.12(2) provides that "no city, county, town, municipal corporation, metropolitan government, or political subdivision of the State of Tennessee shall adopt or enforce any ordinance prescribing less stringent standards ... than those established hereunder" without the state fire marshal's written approval, and that a local government's adopted codes "shall be current within seven (7) years of the date of the latest edition published." Every edition of the residential code from 2018 onward bars a roof recover "where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering," so whichever edition Rutherford County has adopted, one existing layer may be recovered and a second forces a tear-off - unless the County has gone stricter, which it is free to do. Confirm the adopted edition and any local amendment with the Building Codes Department before relying on this for an overlay.
Get the Front Range Re-Roof Cheat Sheet (free PDF)
One printable table — permit thresholds, drip edge, ice & water shield, mid-roof inspections, and Class 4 mandates across the Front Range. We email you the download link.