Florida Building Commission

June 11-12, 2012

Hilton Daytona Beach

100 North Atlantic Avenue

Daytona Beach, FL 32118

Legal Report

First Hearings:

(1) DS 2012 – 017 by Andrew Finlayson

Recommend dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Petitioner is requesting a clarification on whether the BO should be required to go back to an existing facility and require accessibility upgrades long after a permit and CO have been issued and without a new permit having been applied for.

(2) DS2012-021 by Joe Belcher

Question 1.

On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Regarding replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors required to meet the provisions of FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows or doors replaced within a twelve month period do not meet the code definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.

Question 2.

On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question Regarding replacement fenestration, are replacement of windows or doors required to meet the provisions of the FBC-EC at Section 402.3.6 where the windows or doors replaced within a twelve month period do not meet the statutory definition of renovation?, the answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure. The definition in Florida Statutes has been appropriately clarified by the code. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.

Question 3.

On a seconded motion from Cochell, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Is Note d to Table 101.4.1 intended to codify Chapter 553.902 [and 553.903] Florida Statutes?, the answer is YES, when Florida law was superimposed upon the language in the base document (the International Energy Conservation Code), the renovations clause was included under Section 101.4 of the Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation, Applicability, as footnote d to Table 101.4.1. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.

Question 4.

On a seconded motion from Geyslaers, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Regarding the conflict between Sections 101.4.1 and 402.3.6, does 101.4.1 prevail since it reflects statutory requirements?, the answer is YES, the criteria of Section 101.4, including footnote “d” to Table 101.4.1, take precedence to the requirements of Section 402.3.6 because they determine applicability of the code to existing buildings as determined by Florida law. Reaffirmed unanimously by the TAC.

Supplemental Question:

On a seconded motion from Wojcieszak, the TAC found unanimously that the answer to the question, Since the project does not exceed 30 percent of the assessed value of the residential dwelling in accordance with Section 101.4.1and Table101.4.1 Note d, does Florida Building Code-Energy Conservation Section 402.3.6 apply to the project? The answer is NO, not unless the cost of the job (calculated over a year period) exceeds 30 percent of the assessed value of the structure.

(3) DS 2012 – 034 by Arnoldo Artiles, P.E.

Question 1: To the question, What risk category would my telecommunications equipment fall under ASCE7-10 Table 1.5-1, the answer is, per ASCE7- the project in question falls under risk category III.

Question 2: To the question, What risk category would my telecommunication equipment fall under FBC Table 1604.5?

the answer is, as per Table 1604.5 Florida Building Code, Building the project in question falls under risk category II.

Question 3: To the question, If the risk category under ASCE7-10 is more stringent than the risk category under FBC, which risk category should I use for telecommunication equipment?

The answer is, as per Section 102.4 of the FBC-B, the project in question falls under Risk Category II.

(4) DS 2012 - 035 by Broward County

Question 1:

To the Question: In accordance with FBC Section 105.1, is a building Permit required to be obtained from the local Building Official for the repair or remodeling of a Mobile Home?

Answer: TAC recommends that this request should be dismissed due to the fact that construction of mobile/manufactured homes fall outside the scope the Florida Building Code and that the Commission has no legislative authority to address the question of concern.

(5) DS 2012 – 037 by Raymond Manucy of RM Enterprises Inc.

Questions:

1) Question: Do I need to update my current (2007) Florida product approval #FL 3203-R2 to meet the new Florida Building Code 2010, ASCE 7-10? Yes or No?

Answer: The State Product Approval Program is optional to that of the local product approval. Should you elect to update your current state product approval “#FL 3203 –R2” for compliance with the 2010 Florida Building Code, then the answer is “Yes”.

2) Question: Do I need to meet exposure ratings (B,C,D) of the Florida Building Code 2010 section 1609.4.3 Building Section and ASCE 7-10 (FL) Where Florida Building Code 2007 ASCE 7-05 only applies Exposure “C”? Yes or No?

Answer: For the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the 2010 Florida Building (FBC), compliance with the applicable provisions of ASCE 7 – 2010 and the FBC are required.

3) Question: Is it correct that Florida Building Code 2010, ASCE 7-10 (FL) specifies higher lateral loads of 3.1 to 1 for all building heights. Where the Florida Building Code 2007, ASCE 7-05 only specified 1.9 to 1.0 for buildings 60’ or less. Yes or No.

Answer: In accordance with Section 1609.8 of the FBC, Building, the answer is “Yes”, however the 3.1 is permitted to be reduced based on the effective area.

4) Question: Is it correct that the Florida Building Code 2010, ASCE 7-10 (FL) specifies the use of uplift pressure equal to 1.5 to 1 and the Florida Building code 2007, ASCE 7-05 used no additional uplift pressure? Yes or No?

Answer: In accordance with Section 1609.8 of the FBC, B, the answer is “Yes”, however the 1.5 is permitted to be reduced based on the effective area.

5) Question: Do I need to meet both the higher lateral loads and uplift loads? Yes or No?

Answer: In accordance with Section 1609.8 of the FBC, B, the answer is “Yes”.

6) Question: I am correct to say the 2010 FBC – Residential Section R4403.9.1 Building and Structures, and every portion thereof, shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of chapter 26 through 31 of ASCE 7-10? Yes or No?

Answer: With regard to the product in question and in accordance with Section R4403.9.1 of the FBC, Residential, the answer is “Yes”.

7) Question: Does the Governor want the FBC 2010, ASCE 7-10 (FL) to be applied to building doors, garage doors windows and roof tiles? Yes or No?

Answer: The answer to this question is outside the scope of the Declaratory Statement request.

(6) DS 2012 – 038 by Pinch-a-Penny

Issue #1:

Question 1:

To the question, using the Work Area Compliance method, is the replacement of a 1 horsepower residential swimming pool motor with a new 1 horsepower motor a “repair” as defined in Chapter 2, or is it a “Level 1 Alteration” as outlined in Chapter 4?

Answer: According to Section 402 of the FBC, Existing Building, the level of work in question falls under classification of work “repair” and level of work as per Chapter 5 of the FBC, Existing Building.

Question 2:

To the question, using the Work Area Compliance method, as it stated in Section 502.2, like

materials shall be permitted for repairs and alterations, provided no dangerous or unsafe condition is created. Does the replacement of a swimming pool motor of the same horsepower or lesser horsepower created a dangerous or unsafe condition?

Answer: According to Section 502.2 of the FBC, Existing Building “the Code”, only like materials are permitted for repair and thus for the project in question, only swimming pool motor of the same horsepower is permitted. Replacement of motor with a comparable product in accordance with the approved manufacturer installation instruction and the applicable codes would not create a dangerous or unsafe condition as defined in Section 202 of the Code.

Question 4:

To the question, using the Prescriptive Compliance method under Chapter 3, is the replacement of a 1 horsepower motor with a new 1 horsepower motor on an existing residential swimming pool a “repair” to the swimming pool or is it an “Alteration” as defined in Chapter 2?

Answer: According to Section 301.2.2 of the FBC, Existing Building, the level of work in question is permitted under both “repair” and “alteration”, provided no hazard to life, health or property is created.

Issue #2

Question 3:

(Part a)To the question, using the Work Area Compliance method, is the replacement of a 1 horsepower pump valued at $2,000 on a residential swimming pool with an assessed value of $10,000 deemed a minor replacement of materials as defined by Section 202?

Answer: No. According to Section 403.1 of the FBC, Existing Building “the Code”, the classification of work for the project in question is “Alteration – Level 1” which also falls within the scope of Section 613.1, Exception #4 of the Code.

(Part b) If no, then what numerical percentage should be used when trying to determine if the replacement of materials (pump) is minor?

Answer: A numerical percentage approach is not addressed within the Code for the determination of whether replacement of materials (pump) is minor.

(Part c) Or, is replacing a residential swimming pool pump not deemed a repair of the swimming pool and therefore must be considered a Level 1 Alteration without exception?

Answer: See answer to (Part a) above.

Question 5:

To the question, using the Prescriptive Compliance method under Chapter 3, is the replacement of a 1 horsepower pump with a new 1 horsepower pump on an existing residential swimming pool a “repair” to the swimming pool or is it an “Alteration” as defined in Chapter 2?

Answer: As per Section 301.2.2 of the FBC, Existing Building, the level of work in question is permitted under both “repair” and “alteration”, provided no hazard to life, health or property is created.

Issues 1 and 2

Question 6:

To the question, using the Prescriptive Compliance method, is the replacement of a pump or pump- motor on an existing residential swimming pool an ordinary repair as defined by section 304.1 exempt from permit in accordance with Section 105.2?

Answer: According to Sections 105.2 of the Florida Building Code, Building, ordinary repairs may be made with the approval of the building official without a permit as long as replacement of the pump motor does not alter the pump approval or make the pump unsafe. With regard to replacement of the pump, see answers to the applicable questions as stated above.

Question 7:

To the question, using the Prescriptive Compliance method, when repairing the swimming pool by replacing a 1 horsepower motor or pump with a new 1 horsepower motor or pump (like for like), and with no other changes or repairs being made, is a “dangerous condition” being created?

Answer: Replacement of 1 horsepower motor or pump with comparable products in accordance with the approved manufacturer installation instruction and the applicable codes would not create a dangerous or unsafe condition as defined in Section 202 of the Code.

(7) DS 2012 – 039 by the Florida Solar Center

Question1:

To the question (part a), Are the Equivalent U-Factors given in Table 402.1.1.3 of the FBC-EC for mass walls correct? Answer to this question using the declaratory statement process is not possible. Further evaluation and determination of this concern should be deferred for consideration during the code change process.

To the question (part b), If the answer is YES, then what is the basis of this determination, considering that the U-Factor of a mass wall component is technically deemed to represent the thermal transmittance of the entire mass wall composite, including all materials and the internal and external air film transmittances of the component? the answer is NA.

To the question (part c), If the answer is NO, then how will Table 402.1.1.3 of the FBC-EC be modified to correct the Equivalent U-Factors for mass walls? For answer to this question see answer to Question (part a).

(8) DS 2012 – 042 by Rick’s A/C, Inc.

The TAC voted unanimously in favor of deferring DS2012-042 pending resubmittal of additional information by the Petitioner.