Legal Report
December 5, 2006
DCA06-DEC-250 by Michael Griffin, Fugleberg & Koch [was withdrawn]
DCA06-DEC-252 by Christopher M. Spence
DCA06-DEC-270 by Cindy , CSP Roof Consultants
Committee Recommendations:
Question 1: Does section 507.2.2 of the Florida Existing Building Code (FEBC) require that roof deck attachment be checked when 50% of the roof or 50% of an area of roof is removed?
Answer – Yes. The wood roof deck in question is an integral part of the roof diaphragm.
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is additional fastening needed when found to be deficient?
Answer: Yes.
Note: The remainder of the questions are general in nature and thus fall out side the scope of this specific request.
DCA06-DEC-273 by Jack McLaughlin, ORIOLUM Corp
Committee Recommendation : Based on the above facts and circumstances, staff provides the following recommendation:
• To the question, Does the product fall under Rule 9B-72?
The answer is Yes, Hurricane Shutters and their components are covered by Rule 9B-72. Note: No answer is given to the remainder of the questions. These questions are more specific to product development which fall outside the scope of the Declaratory Statement request.
DCA06-DEC-282 by Bert Kolodziej, PE, ITW Buildex
Committee Recommendation : Based on the above facts and circumstances, staff provides the following recommendation:
Question : Does the product in question fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72?
Answer : No, Fasteners other than roofing fasteners are outside the scope of the Rule.
DCA06-DEC-283 by James Lozier, Hurricane Harness Corporation
Committee Recommendation : Based on the above facts and circumstances, staff provides the following recommendation:
No, this product is an aftermarket retrofit and does not fall within Rule 9B-72 which is limited in scope to components of the building envelope and structural frame. Further, the product application falls outside the scope of the Florida Building Code.
DCA06-DEC-284 by Steve Munnell, FRSA
Committee Recommendation:
Question: With the new changes in RAS 118 and RAS 119 effective December 8, 2006, is adhesive still an acceptable means for fastening the first course of tile in lieu of a clip?
Answer: In accordance with Section 102.4 and with regard to the issue in question, the provisions of 1518.8.4.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building, would prevail over the requirements of both RAS 118-3.08(A)(5) and RAS 119.3.09(B). Therefore, the use of other alternatives including an adhesive is an acceptable means for fastening the first course of tile as long as it is part of an approved roofing system and meets the requirements of chapter 16 for wind resistance.
Legal Report
December 5, 2006
DCA06-DEC-250 by Michael Griffin, Fugleberg & Koch [was withdrawn]
DCA06-DEC-252 by Christopher M. Spence
DCA06-DEC-270 by Cindy , CSP Roof Consultants
Committee Recommendations:
Question 1: Does section 507.2.2 of the Florida Existing Building Code (FEBC) require that roof deck attachment be checked when 50% of the roof or 50% of an area of roof is removed?
Answer – Yes. The wood roof deck in question is an integral part of the roof diaphragm.
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is additional fastening needed when found to be deficient?
Answer: Yes.
Note: The remainder of the questions are general in nature and thus fall out side the scope of this specific request.
DCA06-DEC-273 by Jack McLaughlin, ORIOLUM Corp
Committee Recommendation : Based on the above facts and circumstances, staff provides the following recommendation:
• To the question, Does the product fall under Rule 9B-72?
The answer is Yes, Hurricane Shutters and their components are covered by Rule 9B-72. Note: No answer is given to the remainder of the questions. These questions are more specific to product development which fall outside the scope of the Declaratory Statement request.
DCA06-DEC-282 by Bert Kolodziej, PE, ITW Buildex
Committee Recommendation : Based on the above facts and circumstances, staff provides the following recommendation:
Question : Does the product in question fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72?
Answer : No, Fasteners other than roofing fasteners are outside the scope of the Rule.
DCA06-DEC-283 by James Lozier, Hurricane Harness Corporation
Committee Recommendation : Based on the above facts and circumstances, staff provides the following recommendation:
No, this product is an aftermarket retrofit and does not fall within Rule 9B-72 which is limited in scope to components of the building envelope and structural frame. Further, the product application falls outside the scope of the Florida Building Code.
DCA06-DEC-284 by Steve Munnell, FRSA
Committee Recommendation:
Question: With the new changes in RAS 118 and RAS 119 effective December 8, 2006, is adhesive still an acceptable means for fastening the first course of tile in lieu of a clip?
Answer: In accordance with Section 102.4 and with regard to the issue in question, the provisions of 1518.8.4.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building, would prevail over the requirements of both RAS 118-3.08(A)(5) and RAS 119.3.09(B). Therefore, the use of other alternatives including an adhesive is an acceptable means for fastening the first course of tile as long as it is part of an approved roofing system and meets the requirements of chapter 16 for wind resistance.