FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission, staff and the public to Tampa and to the February 2010 plenary session. He stated the one-day Commission format provided time for workgroup meetings to be held in conjunction with Commission meetings while reducing travel and meeting costs. He then stated the primary focus of February’s meeting was to consider any additional recommendations to the 2010 Florida Legislature.

Chairman Rodriguez stated if anyone wished to address the Commission on any of the issues before the Commission they should sign-in on the appropriate sheet(s). He then stated, as always, the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the Commission’s substantive discussion topics. He further stated if one wants to comment on a specific substantive Commission agenda item, they should come to the speaker’s table at the appropriate time so the Commission knows they wish to speak. He concluded by stating public input was welcome, and should be offered before there was a formal motion on the floor.

Chairman Rodriguez then conducted a roll-call of the Commission members.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the meeting agenda as presented in each Commissioner’s files. He amended the agenda stating there would be no Mechanical TAC report.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the meeting agenda as amended. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion as amended was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE DECEMBER 9, 2009 MEETING MINUTES FACILITATOR’S REPORT

Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes from the December 9, 2009 and Facilitator’s Report.

Commissioner Nicholson moved approval of the minutes from the December 9, 2009 Commission meeting and Facilitator’s Report. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez announced the following appointments to the TACs and workgroups:

Energy Code Workgroup

Raphael Palacios was appointed to the Energy Code Workgroup

Energy TAC

Dave Wojasac was appointed to the Energy TAC. He will be replacing Steve Bassett.

Fire TAC

Jon Hamrick was appointed to the Fire TAC.

Roofing TAC

Tim Tolbert was appointed to the Fire TAC. He will be replacing Jon Hamrick.

Flood Resistance Standards Workgroup

Gary Brevoort was appointed to the Flood Resistance Standards Workgroup. He will be replacing Tom Lanese.

Green and Energy Efficient Roofs Subcommittee

Ralph Davis was appointed to the Green and Energy Efficient Roofs Subcommittee to the Energy Code Workgroup. He will be replacing Brad Weatherholz.

Accessibility Code Workgroup

Scott Cannard was appointed to the Accessibility Code Workgroup. He will be replacing Steve Watson.

Special Occupancy TAC

Mark Boutin was appointed to the Special Occupancy TAC. He will be replacing Doug Melvin.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the Commission’s budget. He stated the Commission’s Budget Committee met on February 1, 2010. He then stated the Committee had provided the Commission with an overview of the budget and answered member’s questions. He further stated in addition to the committee members there were numerous Commissioners present including Commissioners Schulte, Schock, Boyer, Tolbert, and Hamrick. He stated Jack Glenn was also in attendance and provided some very important input. He then stated Ila Jones provided an informational presentation of the budget through December 2009 and a projection of the budget for 2010 through June.

Chairman Rodriguez offered a review of the highlights of the presentation as follows: 1) cash on hand as of July 2009 was $1,568,000.00; 2) total revenue received $1,369,000.00. He stated at one point the Commission had total cash availability of $2,938,000.00. He then stated there was a series of disbursements including salaries and other personnel services, expenses, contracted services, insurance, etc. for a total of $1,115,780.00. He further stated the actual cash balance remaining was $1,822,000.00. He continued by stating moving forward Ms. Jones estimated the projected revenues to be an additional $816,000.00 and the appropriation encumbrance balance makes the total estimated disbursement to be $2,434,713.00 for the year. He stated the estimated cash balance at the end of the year to be was only $203,847.00. He then stated the goal was to be able to manage the previously mentioned other personnel services.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the budget report as presented. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez then addressed teleconference conference calls for Legislative updates. He stated as the Commission has done in past years regularly scheduled teleconference calls would be scheduled during the upcoming Legislative Session. He then stated the calls would commence on the first day of session, March 1, 2010, and would be noticed in the FAW as required. He further stated the teleconference calls would be an opportunity to receive updates from Jim and provide him with any needed guidance and recommendations on issues of interest or concern to the Commission.

The teleconference schedule dates are as follows:

Monday, March 1, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Monday, March 15, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Monday, March 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Monday, April 12, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Monday, April 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Monday, April 26, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the proposed teleconference meeting schedule. Commissioner Boyer entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez then directed the Commission to Mr. Richmond for an update on Legislative issues.

Mr. Richmond stated there were a number of issues pending before the Florida Legislature this year which impact the Commission and its work. He explained the primary vehicle for Building Code issues would be SB648, Senator Bennett’s bill. He stated Representative Aubuchon had filed a bill currently identical which was HB663. He then stated Senator Bennett’s bill was up in regulated industries currently as a strike everything amendment. He continued by stating if the Commissioners had the opportunity to review the bill they would find most Building Commission related items come from the Reports to the Legislature, both current and previous years. He stated there were other issues including elevators and fire safety provisions. He then stated one issue discussed at length with the Product Approval POC was a provision rolled forward from the previous years’ bill, relative to products submitted on the basis of the certification and an accelerated approval process for those. He further stated the POC was unable to achieve a recommendation on the issue. He explained he needed to know a firm position of the Commission. He stated the only substantive concern he had found was whether it would require a change to the Building Code Information System. He continued by stating staff had developed an alternative which was presented to the POC yesterday, but a motion supporting the recommendation failed by a tie vote. He then stated there was a further exception the Commission was working on with the wind design of roof mounted mechanical equipment.

Mr. Richmond explained the issue was raised last year stating it did not have to be designed and the provision remains in the bill. He stated it was deemed to comply with the wind design standards if it was attached correctly. He then stated he hoped in working with the industry a result could be achieved which everyone could agree on. He further stated even though the bill was up in the committee it had five committees of reference. He continued by stating the sponsor of the bill had given assurance he would work on any issue that required work. He stated it was an uphill battle with the product approval issue because it was essentially a product of the Legislature from the last year. He then stated it went through the entire legislative process but failed to achieve a final floor vote before the session ended.

Mr. Richmond stated another issue, reflected in SB498, sponsored by Senator Aronberg, was the regulation concerning Chinese drywall or corrosive drywall. He then stated the bill, one of four bills filed relative to the issue, directs the Commission, in consultation with the Department of Health, to develop and adopt a regulation of emissions from drywall and prohibit the installation of anything which either emits too much or contains too much. He explained he believed that to be a technical drafting error because the authority for standards the Commission has was for emissions but there was then discussion on what the drywall contained. He stated he had discussed the issue at length with Mr. Madani and internally it would not appear the research available was currently at a point the Commission could adopt something. He then stated the Commission would have to go into the market and develop its own information and move forward from there. He further stated he had a conference call scheduled to get a better idea of which direction the bill seemed to be heading.

Mr. Richmond continued by stating he had some discussions with staff on the Committee of Community Affairs, as well as some particular legislators, who also pointed to the need to have some perceived need of a remediation standard and a process to eventually give some sort of seal of approval to remediated homes. He stated the Commission was being considered as a potential vehicle to accomplish that. He then stated the Commission had been monitoring the Chinese drywall proceedings both at the federal and state level. He continued by stating at the state level the Department of Health had been assigned the lead from the state government. He further stated he knew the DOH was somewhat uncomfortable in the position because he believed the research had not demonstrated any direct and severe health impact. He stated there had been complaints of respiratory problems or other conditions of that nature, not a circumstance of carcinogens which could affect generations to come. He then stated the Department could consider getting rid of the issue, but was difficult to say at present.

Commissioner Grippa asked if there was any formal data. He then stated if there was he would appreciate staff assisting the Commission review it and come back with their thoughts. He stated he heard two contradictory statements: 1) there was no data, and 2) there were no long term harmful effects. He further stated before the Commission makes those statements he would like to review all of the materials as they come forward. He then asked if the Commission had approved certain manufacturers of Chinese drywall through the Product Approval process.

Mr. Richmond responded by stating some preliminary work had been done and the preliminary findings were that there was no severe health impact. He reiterated it was very preliminary and he did not believe the data was conclusive. He then stated staff had collected a decent amount of information, which could be circulated, but most of the information was available at the DOH website. He further stated their website had been maintained well if for no other reason than as a conduit to what the Consumer Product Safety Commission was doing from the federal side and to receive information in front through their own contractors and research.

Chairman Rodriguez responded to Commissioner Grippa’s second question by stating the Commission only approves envelope Product Approval process and drywall would not be one.

Jack Glenn, President, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated regarding the remediation issue, about two weeks ago he received from a Senate staff member a document prepared by a plans examiner in one of the Central Florida counties. He then stated the document requested homeowners take a position on incorporating those standards into the Legislation. He further stated the senior officers of the association took a vote and the recommendation back to the Senate staff member was they would be much better served to do as was done with mitigation and direct the Commission to formulate mitigation standards as opposed to writing a 15 page mitigation standard into statute. He continued by stating that document was in circulation but the construction industry’s recommendation was to defer to the Commission to develop the standard as opposed to adopting something into the law.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission was being considered as the proper forum to discuss these issues instead of writing them into law without the benefit of the discussion by the TAC.

Mr. Richmond stated the Governor’s budget was released on Friday, January 30, 2010. He then stated unfortunately the section directly impacting the Commission had some type of error but it appeared as though all staff to the Commission were maintained and held on to a minimum of what was appropriated last year. He offered clarification stating as the report was reviewed in depth it bounces between numbers shifting between the current year and last year and they flip flop. He stated at one level it looked as though the Commission was appropriated slightly more funds and at the next level those numbers reverse and it looks like there was slightly less appropriation. He continued by stating the lower number looked like what the Commission was budgeted for last year, but he needed to clarify and obtain some more firm information to deliver on the issue. He concluded by stating it does look hopeful at least by the Governor’s recommendation.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the April 2010 Commission meeting in Gainesville. He stated the meeting would be conducted on April 6 and 7, 2010. He then stated the Plenary Session would be Wednesday, April 7, 2010. He further stated there would likely be a workgroup or committee meeting on the afternoon of Monday, April 5, 2010.

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission work plan. (See Updated Commission Work Plan February 2, 2010).

Mr. Dixon stated there were no changes or additions in the work plan.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the updated work plan. Commissioner Palacios entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Marlene Stern for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

Ms. Stern presented the waiver applications for consideration. Recommended approvals were presented in consent agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals and denials being considered individually.

Recommendation for Approval with No Conditions:

#9 Park Lido Hotel

Ms. Stern explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended approval because it was unnecessary as accessible rooms were available on the second floor via elevator.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval item 9. Commissioner Palacios entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

# 3 Adventist Health Systems

Ms. Stern explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended approval with the condition the applicant provide one accessible seating location is moved to the front of the theater and companion seats, rather than accessible ones, are located on the ends of the rows.

Commissioner Grippa asked if the building was a hospital or if it was an auditorium attached to a medical building.

Ms. Stern stated it appeared to be only an office building.

Commissioner Grippa asked for clarification it was not attached in any way to a medical center.

Ms. Stern responded stating she was not aware of it being attached to a medical building.

Commissioner Grippa stated it was his concern the Commission would be granting a waiver and he could not determine why. He then stated it seemed if it was a hospital, if it was attached it should be accessible as any place on earth. He asked if Ms. Stern could explain why a waiver should be granted. He stated in reviewing the waiver application it appeared as though the applicant just did not want to pay.

Ms. Stern stated the building was new and fully accessible except for the auditorium which has tiered seating. She then stated it had been considered technically infeasible to provide access to each row of seats in such an auditorium. She further stated accessible seats were provided in various locations which provide good lines of sight and dispersed throughout. She stated for those reasons the condition was added.

Commissioner Grippa asked Ms. Stern if she believed the number of accessible seats to be reasonable and customary as compared to other similar type of 140 person auditorium.

Mr. Stern stated the number was approximate. She then stated in Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code there were guidelines indicating how many accessible seats would be required given the total number of seats and the applicant satisfied the criteria.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the location of the seats was as important as the number of seats and the applicant had met both criteria.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#4 Latitude 30

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Tolbert entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Deferrals

#5 Xixon Cafe

Ms. Stern explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the application was recommended for deferral to allow the applicant to provide additional information.

Commissioner Greiner stated his issue was if the application had been deferred two times why not deny the application since the applicant had not been present for either deferral.

Chairman Rodriguez stated if the applicant did not show for a third time the application for waiver would be denied.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for deferral. Commissioner Palacios entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#6 K-8 School “EE”

Commissioner Boyer moved approval of the council’s recommendation for deferral. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#7 Hernando High School “EEE”

Commissioner Hamrick moved approval of the council’s recommendation for deferral. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#8 City of Miami College

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for deferral. Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#2 The Pink House

Ms. Stern explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the application was recommended for deferra,l as requested by the applicant, who could not attend the meeting.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the council’s recommendation for deferral. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Denial

#1 Pine Creek Sporting Club

Ms. Stern explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended denial.

Larry Schneider, Architect, specializing in accessibility consulting

Mr. Schneider stated the petition was requesting a waiver from vertical accessibility in a very unique project. He then stated he had been involved with accessibility since 1985 and had never seen a request like this for vertical accessibility. He continued by stating in Florida Statute 553.512 allows the Commission to grant a waiver for any items unnecessary, unreasonable or those that would cause extreme hardship. He stated Florida Statute 553.509 mandates that “you shall provide vertical accessibility to all levels above and below the occupiable grade level, regardless whether the Code requires an elevator or not. He then stated Pine Creek Sporting Club was an exclusive member-only hunting and fishing club, a true private club. He further stated the approximate 2800 acre area has different phases for ranches and 23 cabins. He stated there was a clubhouse, barn, hunting stables, 800 acres for guided quail hunts and wild hog hunting, lodge with a pool and Jacuzzi, shooting sports area including clay course, 5 stand shooting areas, rifle and pistol range, skeet shooting, tower shots, and a simulated quail flush course. He continued by stating the petitioner was looking for vertical accessibility to the Oak Hammock Tree House as the rest of the project had been built in compliance with the Florida Accessibility Code. He stated the 2,800 acres had a lot of structures on site. He then stated there had been a request to provide an accessible path of travel to all of the elements through the site, it was accepted as an alternative the club agreed to. He further stated the club had purchased two golf carts which were modified for accessibility to provide access making every element accessible except the upper floors of the tree house.

Mr. Schneider stated the Federal regulations 36.102, Exemptions and Exclusions, the Federal ADA exempts private clubs i.e. under the ADA there was no requirement for accessibility for the facility in any venue. He then stated the regulation stated the rule did not apply to any private club. He further stated the definition for private club was found in Section 307 of the ADA and states: “A private club means a private club or an establishment exempted from coverage.” He continued by stating the facility met those qualifications. He stated from a federal point of view there was no issue for accessibility. He then stated Florida Statute 553.505 states private clubs were required to meet the Florida Accessibility Code. He stated the project had been constructed and was still being constructed to meet the Florida Accessibility Code in all other elements. He then stated the waiver for the tree house, which was built as an oak tree stand and has three levels, the first of which will be accessible. He continued by stating the waiver was for the second and third levels, the areas were 225 feet square feet and 100 square feet. He stated the issue of providing vertical accessibility to all areas was an extreme hardship and was unreasonable. He then stated he could not believe the intent of the Legislature was to have accessibility in this type of element to all three levels. He further stated the petitioner had obtained quotes for the 2 lifts required because there were two levels. He stated one lift was quoted at $25,000.00 and the other at $23,000.00. He then stated structures would be required around the lifts to protect them in hurricanes such as footers, block walls, plus a bridge would be necessary to get from the lift to the level without cutting into the tree, and power would be required as there was no electricity at facility currently. He continued by stating the estimated cost the tree house was $56,000.00 and the cost to provide vertical accessibility was $189,000.00 based on the estimates received.

Mr. Schneider then presented a slide show explaining in details of the facility and explained what it would require to provide accessibility. He stated the bridge would be necessary to get to the two levels. He further stated it took more than an hour of the council meeting to discuss the waiver and he did not believe the council was comfortable with the results of the vote.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Schneider if there were any pictures of the ramp to the first level.

Mr. Schneider stated he did not because the ramp had not been built. He then stated the owner stated he would build a ramp.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the project was an after-the-fact project.

Mr. Schneider stated the building was built and a flag was raised after construction.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the building was permitted.

Mr. Schneider responded stating yes, it was permitted.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the local authorities had not picked it up.

Mr. Schneider stated at the end it was indicated vertical accessibility would be required.

Commissioner Greiner stated he did not find any documentation from the building official.

Mr. Schneider stated there was none and none was required.

Commissioner Greiner stated the request was for an after-the fact issue and there was no documentation from the building official until he was permitting it or after the fact.

Mr. Schneider stated the building department was requesting vertical accessibility be provided, which was why it was before the Commission.

Commissioner Greiner asked why it was requested and if they had reviewed plans.

Mr. Schneider stated he would assume they had.

Commissioner Greiner asked if there was no comment on the application.

Mr. Schneider responded stating there was no comment.

Commissioner Greiner asked if that was part of the application.

Mr. Schneider stated it was not a requirement of the application. He then stated in summary the facility was a private club, not covered by the requirements of the ADA. He further stated the Accessibility Code requires vertical accessibility to each element. He continued by stating the clubhouse lodge and all common area elements at this hunt club have been made accessible. He further stated accessible vehicles had been provided to provide access to the elements of the property. He further stated the building was a three level tree house and a waiver was requested for the two upper levels, which were approximately 225 square feet and 100 square feet. He stated the installation of the lift to the two upper areas was unnecessary and unreasonable.

Commissioner Greiner asked Ms. Stern if the TAC had not found the request to show unreasonable, unnecessary or show extreme hardship. He then asked what the results of the vote were.

Ms. Stern stated the first motion was to grant the waiver based on hardship and the motion did not pass. She then stated there was a lot of discussion as Mr. Schneider had mentioned. She continued by stating the second motion was to deny and the motion passed unanimously. She further stated the problem was the building was new construction and it could’ve been planned from the beginning but it was not planned from the beginning to be accessible.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was a little confused about the chain of events. He asked if all of the structures being built on the site met the requirements for accessibility why did this one not. He asked who raised the flag and how many structures on the site were built without a permit.

Mr. Schneider responded to Commissioner Greiner’s first question stating the owners had no qualms about making the lodge accessible or anything else. He stated the waiver request was no different than the two the Commission had just granted on the feeders.

Chairman Rodriguez reminded Mr. Schneider that was not the question.

Mr. Schneider stated the structures and facilities are being used by the members only such as the barn area and the shooting areas. He then stated the building department wanted a path of travel, made of concrete or asphalt, accessible to all of the elements. He continued by stating after being brought on board a recommendation was made to use golf carts.

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Schneider had already used 15 minutes. He then stated the bottom line was there were no plans. He further stated he doubted the building was built with the rest of the buildings, more of an afterthought. He continued by stating it was not clear who raised the flag. He stated it was wonderful to hear all the good things that his client had done but the Commission only needed to hear about the tree house.

Commissioner Greiner stated he agreed with Chairman Rodriguez. He then stated his biggest concern was the number of buildings being built without permits. He continued by stating it seemed as though it was being corrected only because someone had raised a flag. He further stated he could lean toward unreasonable, unnecessary and hardship but he was concerned how it all of the sudden came to the building department’s attention when it sounds like it was already built.

Mr. Schneider stated he did not have the answer to that. He then stated to the best of his knowledge it went through the process and the building department raised the flag at the end.

Commissioner Greiner stated he had still not seen any plans.

Mr. Schneider stated he did not believe he would find any drawings for the structure.

Commissioner Gregory asked if Mr. Schneider was aware of any permits pulled for any of the structures for the site.

Mr. Schneider asked if he meant for the structure or all of the other projects.

Chairman Rodriguez responded just for the tree house.

Mr. Schneider responded stating he believed there was a permit to build the tree house.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Schneider if he had seen the permit.

Mr. Schneider responded he had not.

Commissioner Grippa asked if there had been a permit for the structure would it be a mitigating circumstance. He stated he had a hard time reconciling how the previous two waivers were approved and would have a lot more public in it than a tree stand. He then stated there was a tree stand in a private camp and if someone did not like it they would not join which was why it was exempted from the federal ADA.

Chairman Rodriguez stated this was Florida.

Commissioner Grippa stated he understood but opposed to a public auditorium, where two have now been exempted.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the auditoriums were not exempted, but approved with conditions.

Commissioner Grippa stated it might be worthwhile, if there were additional questions or to determine if there was a permit, to send it back to the TAC. He then stated he had a hard time (interrupted by Chairman Rodriguez)

Chairman Rodriguez stated the TAC spent an hour on the application and unanimously voted to deny the waiver.

Commissioner Grippa stated he had a hard time reconciling in his mind how Adventist Health Systems and other stadiums are approved but a private hunting club was not. He then stated he believed it was a difference in opinion because he would want more information and to see whether a permit was pulled.

Commissioner Schock stated the application had already gone back to the Advisory Council.

Mr. Blair offered clarification for everyone the application would go back to the Accessibility Advisory Council.

Commissioner Schock stated he had some real problems with the cost breakdown with installing a lift with a generator to run it up and down.

Commissioner Schock moved to approve the council’s recommendation for denial. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Franco stated he was concerned the waiver council was going through all of the process without having asked to see the permit drawings to determine whether the building or structure was submitted and reviewed.

Ms. Stern stated the representative for the applicant stated there was an approval given originally and the council found that acceptable. She then stated it was not something the council questioned.

Commissioner Franco asked if the council accepted the structure was permitted, approved for building by the officials and never questioned whether there were any problems with accessibility.

Ms. Stern responded stating some members of the council found that it was unusual but did not question further. She then stated the concern was mostly that it was new construction and there was no reason it should not be vertically accessible. She further stated whether it was approved or not by the building official and later questioned by a building official did not seem relevant to their concern.

Commissioner Franco stated his concern was as a designer the process was entered reading the codes and statutes to determine that the project was in compliance. He then stated there was a submission process for building officials and plans review and it was approved. He continued by stating the structure was built and at the end the building official indicates there was a problem with vertical accessibility.

Chairman Rodriguez offered clarification there was no evidence that had occurred.

Commissioner Franco apologized stating he thought there was evidence.

Chairman Rodriguez stated there was an assumption to the best of Mr. Schneider’s ability he believed there was evidence. He further stated the council did not ask for it because they were not architects, engineers or contractors, but people who were advocates of accessibility. He reiterated there was no evidence of a permit for the tree house.

Mr. Schneider stated he respectfully requested a deferral to provide the Commission with the information. He then stated the Commission would then have all of the facts to make the decision.

Chairman Rodriguez stated there was a motion on the floor to deny. He then asked if the Commission wanted to defer if it would have to have a substitute motion.

Mr. Blair responded stating the Commission could vote it out, the maker of the motion could withdraw the motion, or there could be a substitute motion to vote on.

Commissioner Scherer stated his decision would be a lot easier if he knew if a permit had been pulled or not.

Commissioner Schock stated if it was acceptable to the second he would withdraw his motion.

Commissioner Goodloe withdrew his second.

Commissioner Palacios moved approval to defer application for applicant to provide additional information. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Commissioner Carson for presentation of entity approvals.

Commissioner Carson stated the following six entities were recommended for approval by the POC:

CER 3916 Quality Auditing Institute Ltd.

CER 8526 CPA-Composite Panel Assoc

TST 2469 IBA Consultants

TST 6049 Trinity/ERD - South Carolina

TST 6679 Air Ins, Inc.

TST 8139 Structural Building Components Research Institute