First Hearing:

DCA06-DEC-188 by Kevin McGrath, PE, Four Seasons Solar Products, LLC (General and the Dec. request in need of clarification). No action is needed.

DCA06-DEC-189 by Bob Alligood, Ice House America , LLC. (Deferred to the local appeal board). No action needed.

DCA06-DEC-200 by Warren Schaefer, PE

Question #1: Are the proposed anchor substitutes acceptable to what was tested providing they are reviewed and certified by a Florida Licensed Engineer?

Answer: No, according to Rule 9B-72.005(e), rational engineering analysis can not be used in lieu of standard testing. Therefore, the product in question must be anchored as tested, except that local projects may have specific product approval in accordance with alternate methods and materials authorized in the code.

Question #2: If not acceptable, would they be acceptable if the frame anchors were at the same spacing as the tested nail fin nails (10” O.C.)?

Answer: See answer to the question #1 above.

DCA06-DEC-201 by Warren Schaefer, PE

Question: I need to know for certain what is acceptable by code as the tributary area of a window/door/shutter system to be considered in the wind load analysis.

Answer: Determination of such tributary area is subject to accepted engineering practices (see ASCE 7 –02, Commentary for guidance).

DCA06-DEC-212 by Steve Munnell, Executive Director, FRSA

Question: Does the code allow either “L” flashing method or step flashing against sidewalls on residential construction both inside and outside of the HVHZ?

(1) HVHZ areas - “Yes” according to RAS 115, both methods “L” flashing method and step flashing is allowed against sidewalls on residential construction.

(2) Outside the HVHZ- according to section R905.2.8.4, only step flashing is allowed against sidewall, however, other installation methods may be allowed subject to approval by the building official in accordance with Section 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment

DCA06-DEC-215 by Bruce Kaiser, Wind Tripper Corporation

Question: – Does the product in question “Windtripper” fall under Rule 9B-72?

Answer: The product in question falls outside the scope of Rule 9B-72. The scope of the Rule is limited to the categories of products cited in Rule 9B-72.005 and products and systems which comprise the building envelope and structural frame are addressed in the Florida Building Code.

DCA06-DEC-216 by Eddie Fischer

Question: Do plastic accessories for the reinforcement of concrete in rebar and mesh applications fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72?

Answer: The product in question falls outside the scope of Rule 9B-72. The scope of the Rule is limited to categories of products listed in Rule 9B-72.005 and products and systems which comprise the building envelope and structural frame are addressed in the Florida Building Code.

DCA06-DEC-218 by Paul Dickson, CBO, City of Cape Coral

Question: Can the project in question as described in item #1 above be constructed as one building?

The TAC did not reach consensus on this request for Declaratory Statement. There were two motions on the subject. Both motions resulted in a tie. The first motion was to go with staff recommendation and the vote was 4 yeas and 4 nays as follows:

Question: Can the project in question as described in item #1 above be constructed as one building?

Answer: Yes , as long as the building in question is in compliance with requirements of Section 507.2 of the Florida Building Code , Building.

The second motion was to state that buildings were not on the same lot, and for that reason they should be treated as separate buildings. This is in accordance with s. 503.1.3 of the Florida Building Code. The project in question as proposed did not agree with the fire separation distance required by the code. The vote was 4 yeas and 4 nays.

DCA06-DEC-220 by Emil Veksenfeld, PE. (Deferred to the local appeal board). No action is needed.