FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

 

Teleconference Meeting Minutes

 

Structural Technical Advisory Committee

Concurrent with the

Special Occupancy Technical Advisory Committee

 

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

at 9:00 a.m.

 

Structural TAC Members Present: James Schock – Chair, Rusty Carroll, Charles Everly, Jamie Gascon, Jack Glenn, Daniel Lavrich, Nicholas Nicholson,  Dave Olmstead, Craig Parrino, Do Kim.

 

Members Absent: CW Macomber.

 

Staff Present: Mo Madani, Rick Dixon, Bruce Ketcham, Jim Richmond, Marlita Peters

 

Guests Present:

Joy Duperault, NFIP, Emergency Management and Mollie Heibert, NFIP, Emergency Management.

 

The meeting of the Structural TAC was called to order at 9:03 a.m.  Roll call was taken and a full quorum was present.  Guests were introduced.

 

Approval of the Structural TAC agenda as presented was approved by all members.

 

Structural TAC Minutes from the previous meeting of July 28, 2009, were also approved.

 

DCA09-DEC-347  George Merlin of George Merlin Association, Inc.

Review, discussion and recommendations regarding declaratory statement DCA09-DEC-347 in which the petitioner is requesting clarification with regard to the provisions of the CCCL requirements of the Florida Building Code, Building.  Specifically in regards to FBC Ch 3109.1 and 3109.4, FS Ch 161.052(12), FBC Ch 3109.3 and 3109.4, FDEP Ch 62B-33.007(4)(c), FS 161.54(12) and FBC 3110.1.2.  The petitioner is a Florida licensed architect and frequently designs single family homes on the gulf-coast barrier islands that are in the area seaward of the FDEP-FBC Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL).

 

During the discussion it was determined that on page 6 of the Staff Analysis, the Answer to Question 2(b) should actually refer to the answer of 2(a).

 

Structural TAC Motion:

Structural TAC moved to vote on same motion as stated.

 

Action:  the TAC voted unanimously to approve staff recommendations as follows:

DCA09-DEC-347 by George Merlin of George Merlin Associates Inc.

           

Question #1:            Is the application of the exception in FBC Ch 3109.1.1 the same as the historical application and interpretation of the exemption in FS Ch 161.053(12) i.e., repairs and modifications to existing structures seaward of the CCCL have no limit on the cost of the work provided that the work stays within the limits of the existing foundation and does not modify that foundation and also meets the requirements of the Florida Building Code for Existing Buildings?

 

Answer:                   Yes.  According to Section 3109.1.1 Exception, the project as described in Case #1 above is not required to be re-designed to resist the predicted forces associated with a 100-year storm event.

 

 

Question # 2(a):       Is the application and interpretation of the exception in FBC Ch 3109.3 and 3109.4 to be the same as the historical application and interpretation of the exemption in FDEP Ch 62B-33.007(4)(c), i.e., if the work on an existing habitable structure involves an addition outside the existing foundation or repair or modification the existing foundation, the work is still exempt from the otherwise imposed elevation and pile foundation standards unless the addition outside the existing foundation constitutes a “substantial improvement” to the existing structure, as defined by FS 161.54(12)?

 

Answer:                   “Yes” as long as the level of work as noted in Case #2 does not advance the seaward limits and constitute rebuilding of the existing structure [see Sections 3109.3(Exception 1) and 3109.4(Exception 1).]          

 

Question #2(b):        Is the application and interpretation of the exceptions in FBC Ch 3109.3 and 3109.4 to be the same as the historical application and interpretation of the exemption in FDEP Ch 62B-33.007(4)(c), i.e., if the work on an existing habitable structure involves an addition outside the existing foundation or a repair or modification to the existing foundation, the work is still exempt from the otherwise imposed elevation and pile foundation standards, unless the addition outside the existing foundation and modifications above and within the existing foundation together constitute a “substantial improvement” to the existing structure, as defined by FS 161.54(12)?

 

Answer:                   See answer to Question #2(a).

 

 

Question #3:            The FBC code within section 3110.1.2 defines that the FBC defers to local governments floodplain management for FEMA codes and local floodplain. The FBC code as stated says “the FBC defers to local governments for all floodplain management construction regulations for all structures that are NOT seaward of the CCCL”. (Emphasis added to the word NOT). Does this mean that, when local codes are in conflict with FBC, the state code takes priority over local codes when pertaining to construction projects located seaward of the CCCL?

 

Answer:                   No answer is possible.  The Code defers regulations with regard to Floodplain Management Program to the local authority having jurisdiction.

 

(Note: draft order should provide for clarification that the answers are limited to the cases in question, the scope of the 2007 FBC and authority within the jurisdiction of the Commission).

 

It was noted that all TAC members should appoint a designee if they will not be attending the FBC meetings in Orlando, December 7-10, 2009.

 

Adjournment:

This concluded the Structural TAC portion of the teleconference.  Motion to adjourn 9:49 a.m.