|
Proponent |
Comment Submitted |
Staff Comment |
|
Frank O’Neill and Section 201.2 |
The section on requirements for secondary water
barriers does not address all of the currently proposed options. However, the
current requirements, have still not addressed all of the viable options
which are currently available (many of which have current Fl product
approval). Specifically synthetic products which have gone through intensive
testing. The attached has addressed a number of options,
products, and testing criteria, which these products have passed. It is our request that this information be reviewed,
and considered in the final determination of, what is acceptable as a
secondary water barrier. |
See attachment. |
|
j. abramson |
I am concerned about any retrofitting requirements in
effect as of 9/1/07 re condominium association located in Sebastian Fl. Gentleman tripped over PVC piping
containing electrical wire which fed lighting fixtures on the edge of the
roof of the 3 story complex. The
piping had not only come loose from strapping on the flat gravel roof
following hurricane winds etc in 2004, but the piping actually had broken and
came apart at intervals exposing the wiring itself. Unfortunately he tangled his feet in the
wire that was exposed in the broken piping, about a foot or so from edge of
roof and fell. The condition was known
to the condo association for several yrs and they preferred to do nothing
about it, allegedly owing to a "tight" budget, and had been
awaiting results on an insurance claim earlier made. It seems to me the "exposed and loose
wiring" would clearly be a violation of the NEC. Can you advise if this is true, and
assuming the Fl Bldg Code adopts the NEC, can you point out to me where in
the FL BLDG CODE, it reinforces need to repair such condition, and whether
same is considered a severe, moderate, or minimal hazard. Condo board is
concerned as is the injured victim. Will appreciate
your input. if you can quote me or refer me to any clauses or text that deals
with this hazard |
|
|
Richard Barcant
PE |
I am a
registered professional (structural) engineer with ~28 years experience in
the State of I have an initial comment and may also add a
few more as I read more. The report and legislation only mention strengthening ‘gable’ roofs, but do not mention ‘shed’ roofs which have the identical structural weakness as ‘gables’. This should be added as non technical individuals do not appreciate this and assume that they are problem free since they are not mentioned (I had this discussion with several contactors recently). |
|
|
|
Synthetic roofing felt is just as viable as 30 lb. May be even better
than 30lb due to impermeability. (new part C regarding underlayments) |
|
|
Steven Sutton Carruthers Architects |
You are making a big problem here. Roofing contractors are just that – roofing contractors. They are not
qualified to modify an existing contractor. They are not general contractors
authorized to provide structural contracting services. They are not certified
engineers, qualified to design remedial structural roof design. What you want to accomplish IS NOT possible by a state certified roofing contractor. Therefore, what you wish to accomplish by statute is not achievable in the real world, as written. |
|
|
David Theen, PX |
It all looks good to me. The only thing I would suggest would be to include some drawings to visually show what needs to be done for the gable ends. A couple of illustrations with proper text would help most people immensely. |
See the figures on the web site. |
|
Earl Wright President Total Roofing Contractors, Inc. |
I have received the update proposal and in reviewing it I
noticed that there is still not a provision for inspection of the
retrofits. I have not had a issue with
complying with the rules of the retrofits only with the implementation of
inspections. Our local municipality
has up to this point allowed for a letter of intent to comply affidavit to be
used instead of an actual inspection of the roof sheathing nailing and roof
to wall connections. I feel this has
been the only realistic proposed solution.
There has been some discussion of requiring roofing contractors to
employ an engineering firm to provide these inspections due to the time
sensitive nature of these inspections.
Obviously we cannot wait around for inspectors to show up and perform
these inspections due the liability exposure on an existing home. At this time work in our area has been slow
but, we don't expect this to last forever and when we are busy again we will
have an issue with the availability of inspectors. I know that inspections are necessary but
under the circumstances I feel that the affidavit is the best solution I have
heard so far. Another municipality has
supplemented the affidavit by requiring photos of the permit card on the roof
deck and showing the nailing pattern.
This is good idea too. To get back to my point, the issue of inspection procedure needs to be addressed and it needs to be clear and consistent. Please give very careful consideration to the exposure roofing contractors face during a reroof. Particularly during the spring and summer when rains can be a little unpredictable. Please also note that tarps, even on a temporary basis (overnight) are not an acceptable solution! |
|
|
|
|
|