Florida Building Commission
Embassy Suites at
USF
3705 Spectrum
Blvd
Tampa, FL 33612
Legal
Report
First
Hearings:
(1) DS
2012-021 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.
(2) DS 2012-042 by Rick’s A/C, Inc.
The Commission voted at
the June meeting in favor of deferring DS2012-042 pending resubmittal of
additional information by the Petitioner necessary to establish a clear set of
facts and circumstances for the issue in question. However, to date the petitioner has not
provided the additional information.
Therefore, staff recommends that this request be dismissed.
(3) DS 2012-044 by Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.E., Initial Engineers
Question: To the question” Is it the intent of the 2010
Florida Building Code – Existing Building, Section 709.1 to require all Level 2
Alterations to conform with the current Code requirements with respect to
ventilation?
”, the
answer is yes.
According to Section 709.1 of the FBC, Existing Building, all
reconfigured spaces of the project in question that are intended for occupancy
must be provided with natural or mechanical ventilation or exhaust in
accordance with the 2010 Florida Building Code, Mechanical, unless
otherwise approved by the code official pursuant to Section 101.5.1 of the Florida
Building Code, Existing Building, that it is a limited structural
alteration as defined in Section 807.4.3.
(4) DS 2012-051 by Larry M. Schneider, AIA
Staff
recommends that the Commission dismiss this request due to the fact that the
request is outside the scope of the Declaratory Statement process. The project in question is already constructed
and the petitioner is seeking to overrule the building official.
(5) DS 2012-052 by Baltimore Aircoil Company
Question 1: To the question, Does the Florida Statute 553.844(4) exempt exposed
mechanical equipment, including the cooling tower structural system, from
design for wind loads in accordance with the Florida Building Code?, the answer is yes, if mechanical
equipment is fastened to a
roof or installed on the ground in compliance with the code using rated stands,
platforms, curbs, slabs, or other means it is deemed to comply with the wind
resistance requirements of the 2007 Florida Building Code, as amended.
Question 2: To the question, Does Senate Bill 704 (Building Construction and Inspection),
which was signed by Governor Rick Scott, extend the expiration of FS 553.844
until 2013?, the answer is yes, HB
704 provides for extending the expiration of an exemption from the wind
resistance requirements of the Florida Building Code that are specific to enclosure
of exposed mechanical equipment or appliances until the effective date of the
2013 Florida Building Code.