Florida Building Commission

June 19, 2015

Legal Report

Gainesville Hilton

1714 SW 34th St, Gainesville, FL 32607,

Florida

FIRE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

DS2015-048 by Clinton Arsenault of Monroe County Building Department

Question: Due to the fact 2010 FBC Residential Sec. R321 specifically references only Elevators and lifts intended to carry people {passenger elevators, limited use/limited application elevators, private residence elevators, and platform lifts.} Is it the intent of the code to regulate ONLY the installation of Elevator and Platform lifts intended to carry people?

Answer: No, The device in question meets the definition of an elevator in both the Florida Building Code, Building and the referenced standard ASME A17.1.  ASME A17.1 offers many classifications of elevators with varying degrees of sophistication, intended uses, and safety provisions. This device must meet the standard of the classification, which it most closely resembles as provided by ASME A17.1.

SPECIAL  OCCUPANCY  TAC and STRUCTURAL TAC

Both the Special Occupancy and Structural TACs took up this request for declaratory statement resulting in different recommendations with regard to answers to questions 2, 3 and 4 as noted in red.

Special Occupancy

DS2015-055 by Robert S. Fine of Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

Question 1: May Petitioner (and the Building Official) rely on past consistent interpretations by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the DEP’s predecessor agency, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), of identical regulatory language that is now set forth in Section 3109 to determine whether the Paramount is allowed to have intermediate structural slabs below the wave crest elevation?  If yes, do the past consistent interpretations of DEP and DNR allow intermediate structural slabs below the wave crest elevation?

Answer 1: Yes. As the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission") held in Declaratory Statement DCA07-DEC-179, "[t]he Petitioner is entitled to rely on past consistent interpretations of the DEP and DNR to the extent that the historical application of the regulation is consistent with the current context of the FBC." The provisions of Section 3109 of the FBC that are germane to the issues and questions set forth in the Petition are for all practical purposes identical to the corresponding provisions of Rule 62B-33.007, F.A.C. (2001 and 2004). As such, the contexts are consistent.  Petitioner has provided evidence of consistent practice of the DEP and DNR in connection with allowing the presence of intermediate structural slabs located below the wave crest elevation in a manner comparable to how such slabs are located in the Paramount project, thereby demonstrating that the intermediate structural slab location is consistent with the historical application of DEP's (and DNR's) regulation.

Question 2: Declaratory Statement DCA07-DEC-179 provides, for example, that a dining area located seaward of the CCCL is allowed at elevations in between base flood elevation and the elevation of the lowest horizontal structural member but the associated kitchen must either be above the lowest horizontal structural member or be located landward of the CCCL.  Does this mean that only portions of the structure that are located seaward of the CCCL, but not the remaining portions of the structure landward of the CCCL, must comply with Section 3109 of the FBC?

Answer 2: The areas of a structure located seaward of the CCCL are subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 3109 and those areas of the structure that are landward of the CCCL are not subject to Section 31 09's requirements.

Question 3: When any portion of the project structure falls seaward of the CCCL, does Section 3109.1.1 require that the entire structure comply with the requirements of Section 3109?

Answer 3:  The areas of a structure located seaward of the CCCL are subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 3109 and that areas of the structure that are landward of the CCCL are not subject to Section 31 09's requirements.

Question 4: For any major structure that falls within Exception 4 of Section 3109.4.2, are the slabs that are constructed below the level of the wave crest elevation required to be frangible, or may they be of more permanent construction?

Answer 4: Walls and partitions that are constructed below the level of the wave crest elevation are required to be frangible as mandated by Section 3109 .4.2 (see Exception 9). Structural slabs that are constructed below the wave crest elevation are not required by Section 3109.4.2 to be frangible or break-away.  Section 3109.4.2 is a restatement of the Rule 62B-33.007(4)(f) of the DEP regulations. As demonstrated by the examples of permits issued by DEP that allowed for the presence of structural slabs below the wave crest elevation provided with the Petition, DEP's interpretations of its regulation allowed for the presence of such structural slabs. This interpretation is consistent with the language of Section 3109.4.2 and Rule 62B-33.007 which expressly either prohibit, or significantly limit, built elements with significant vertical dimension

running parallel to the shoreline that would impede the flow of waves and dynamic storm surge. On the other hand, a slab, by its dimensional nature, would not impede or alter the flow of waves and storm surge significantly.

Question 5: For the purposes of determining the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 3109.4.2, is the Paramount a low-rise building as that term is used in Exception 4?

Answer 5: Because the mean roof height at Paramount does not fall within the parameters contained in the definition of low-rise building, Paramount is not a low-rise building as that term is used in Exception 4 to Section 3109 .4.2.

Structural TAC

DS2015-055 by Robert S. Fine of Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

Question 1: May Petitioner (and the Building Official) rely on past consistent interpretations by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the DEP’s predecessor agency, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), of identical regulatory language that is now set forth in Section 3109 to determine whether the Paramount is allowed to have intermediate structural slabs below the wave crest elevation? If yes, do the past consistent interpretations of DEP and DNR allow intermediate structural slabs below the wave crest elevation?

Answer 1: Yes. As the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission") held in Declaratory Statement DCA07-DEC-179, "[t]he Petitioner is entitled to rely on past consistent interpretations of the DEP and DNR to the extent that the historical application of the regulation is consistent with the current context of the FBC." The provisions of Section 3109 of the FBC that are germane to the issues and questions set forth in the Petition are for all practical purposes identical to the corresponding provisions of Rule 62B-33.007, F.A.C. (2001 and 2004). As such, the contexts are consistent. Petitioner has provided evidence of consistent practice of the DEP and DNR in connection with allowing the presence of intermediate structural slabs located below the wave crest elevation in a manner comparable to how such slabs are located in the Paramount project, thereby demonstrating that the intermediate structural slab location is consistent with the historical application of DEP's (and DNR's) regulation.

Question 2: Declaratory Statement DCA07-DEC-179 provides, for example, that a dining area located seaward of the CCCL is allowed at elevations in between base flood elevation and the elevation of the lowest horizontal structural member but the associated kitchen must either be above the lowest horizontal structural member or be located landward of the CCCL. Does this mean that only portions of the structure that are located seaward of the CCCL, but not the remaining portions of the structure landward of the CCCL, must comply with Section 3109 of the FBC?

Answer 2: No, Section 3109.1.1(1) is specific in stating that all habitable structures which extend wholly or partially seaward of the CCCL or 50feet setback line are applicable to section 3109.

Question 3: When any portion of the project structure falls seaward of the CCCL, does Section 3109.1.1 require that the entire structure comply with the requirements of Section 3109?

Answer 3: No, Section 3109.1.1(1) is specific in stating that all habitable structures which extend wholly or partially seaward of the CCCL or 50feet setback line are applicable to section 3109.

Question 4: For any major structure that falls within Exception 4 of Section 3109.4.2, are the slabs that are constructed below the level of the wave crest elevation required to be frangible, or may they be of more permanent construction?

Answer 4:  Section 3109.4.2 does not apply to slabs because that section applies to walls, for slabs they must be designed in accordance with section 3109.5. If the slabs are designed to 3109.5 they do not have to be frangible they can be structural.

Question 5: For the purposes of determining the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 3109.4.2, is the Paramount a low-rise building as that term is used in Exception 4?

Answer 5: Because the mean roof height at Paramount does not fall within the parameters contained in the definition of low-rise building, Paramount is not a low-rise building as that term is used in Exception 4 to Section 3109 .4.2.