FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

Chairman Browdy welcomed the Commission and gallery to the March 2007 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission. He directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for a review of the Commission meeting agenda.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the meeting agenda as provided in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE FEBRUARY 6 & 7, 2007 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORTS

Chairman Browdy called for approval of the minutes and the facilitator’s reports from the February 2007 Commission meeting.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the February Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Bassett noted the attendance sheet listed him as attending with an asterisk next to his name. He stated he was not at the meeting and does not know what the asterisk stood for.

Chairman Browdy requested Mr. Bassett’s attendance at last meeting be deleted.

Commissioner Bassett stated in discussions relative to the declaratory statements there were many references to the POC recommendations. He further stated he did not believe these declaratory statements were only reviewed by the POCs. He stated the TACs also reviewed these statements; therefore the minutes should be corrected to state the TAC recommendations.

Commissioner Bassett then noted a paragraph which stated an appointment of Joseph Kayjack to a TAC, but which TAC was not stated.

Chairman Browdy clarified it was the Plumbing TAC. He then proposed the use of committee instead of POC or TAC should suffice when relative to the declaratory statements.

Commissioner Greiner amended the motion to include the corrections stated for the February Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the amended motion.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

Chairman Browdy recognized Neil Melick for review of the Accessibility Waiver Applications as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Mr. Melick stated due to poor lighting he had asked legal counsel, Peter Kelegian, to present the Council’s recommendations.

#3 The Cameo Theater

Mr. Kelegian explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner McCombs moved acceptance of the Council’s recommendation to approve the waiver. Commissioner Bahadori entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#4 Gwen Cherry Park

Mr. Kelegian explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner McCombs moved acceptance of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#5 Congo River Golf

Mr. Kelegian explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Greiner moved acceptance of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#1 Sandcastle Real Estate Office

Mr. Kelegian explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Greiner moved acceptance of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#2 Gables CitiTower

Mr. Kelegian explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification of whether a deferral was recommended.

Mr. Blair stated the Council’s recommendation for denial was upheld and the record should reflect such.

Commissioner Greiner asked what the building official stated with regarding this waiver application.

Mr. Melick stated at the last meeting the waiver was deferred with a request for additional information. He stated during the current meeting the application was recommended for denial.

Chairman Browdy stated the Commission’s vote was to uphold the recommendation of the Council.

Mr. Melick explained there was no building official’s review in the package submitted to the Council. He further stated there is a building official’s review in the overhead presentation by the applicant’s representative which indicated there was permitting activity in the last three years, but no cost of construction was provided to the Council. He explained, within the Code, permitting activity can be added cumulatively to determine disproportionate cost. He stated with the $65,000.00 alone and nothing to verify the last three years; it was difficult for the Council to find the hardship. Mr. Melick restated this difficulty determining hardship was the reason the waiver application was previously deferred for additional information.

Robert S. Fine, representing the applicant, stated it was the applicant’s belief there was adequate information for the Commission regarding the application. eHe He explained the applicant was seeking a waiver for vertical accessibility to an area on a raised level off the lobby of a multi-story office building. He further explained this waiver would otherwise be required by Section 553.509 of the Florida Statutes and 11.4.1.6 of the Florida Building Code. He stated Florida Statute 553.5.12 directs the Florida Building Commission to provide by regulation criteria for granting individual modifications or exceptions from the requirement. He further stated requiring vertical accessibility to this raised level would constitute an unreasonable and financial hardship for the applicant.

Mr. Fine stated Gables CitiTower is an existing multi-level office building located in Coral Gables. He further stated a portion of the rentable space off the lobby is at a level approximately four feet above the main lobby level. He explained one tenant will be building out the space and occupying it. He further explained the tenant has been in the building for some time and also has other larger spaces in the building located on all levels accessible. He stated the build-out is within the guidelines of this tenant’s space and is not in the landlord controlled common area. Mr. Fine then referenced an overhead projection showing a floor plan of the space being discussed.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification concerning the difference in elevation of the levels.

Mr. Fine answered the difference is approximately four feet. Mr. Fine then continued referencing an overhead projection showing the build-out plans, which actually had been completed. He stated proper permits were obtained for the build-out. He explained during the permitting process the building official did not require vertical accessibility, but at TC time, the building official stated he believed it was required. He stated he would prefer not to defer as a tenant is waiting to start business in the completed space, but cannot until this matter is resolved. He then referenced a declaratory statement issued by the Florida Building Commission from November 2005, which was a final order and is still binding regarding accessibility. He stated the declaratory statement raised the question “When a tenant performs a build-out within their tenant space, does the obligation for a landlord to provide common area improvements cross the lease line and impose an obligation on the landlord?” He further stated there were two ways to look at this: 1) does it in fact state the tenant space cannot impose vertical accessibility on the landlord? or 2) does what is done in one tenant’s space affect other tenants, i.e., what a tenant does on floor nine should not affect what a tenant in the lobby area builds out.

Mr. Fine stated the project cost for the build-out was approximately $65,000.00, which has been verified by the building official. He further stated there are two cost estimates for the lift and the required construction, one at $68,851.00 and the other is $73,000.00. He explained the reason the estimates were so high is because the stair which is all structural, actually does not allow any room for a landing or a lift. He further explained the entire area would have to be rebuilt to accommodate a lift. Mr. Fine stated even if the cost for the lift and required construction were half, it would still be 50% of the cost for the renovation to provide the vertical accessibility in regard to the tenant space itself. He continued by stating the council had expressed the position when looking at a building with different spaces in it any alteration costs to that building over a three year period are added together to evaluate the 20% disproportionate cost analysis. He stated this was started several years ago in facilities that included a single user restaurant or a single user retail store, for example. He further stated he did not agree with that position, but noted it understandable, for instance, if there is an eighteen foot high space with a mezzanine which is open to a restaurant, the restaurant and the mezzanine might be considered the same area. He pointed out this methodology cannot be applied to a multi level office building where unrelated tenant improvement costs can be added up. He explained it would be contradictory to the policy discussed in the declaratory statement and it is an arbitrary and irrational way of applying the Code provision, possibly raising equal protection issues.

Mr. Fine offered a hypothetical example based on this building. He stated if the building were built nine years ago, pre-ADA, and thirty months ago a lift costing $50,000.00 was installed, which was approximately twenty percent of $250,000.00; also thirty months ago a tenant on the ninth floor does a tenant improvement which cost $100,000.00; twenty months ago a tenant on the seventh floor does its own improvement, wholly contained within it’ space which cost $100,000.00 and ten months ago someone on the fifth floor does an improvement for $40,000.00. He continued with example stating another tenant comes forward requesting to do an improvement costing $15,000.00, but now council indicates he would have to do a lift to serve his space. Mr. Fine asked if this would be fair to the tenant considering he knew nothing of the other tenant’s improvements and the path of travel only goes to this one tenant’s space. He stated this is not a path of travel shared by any other tenants because it goes nowhere else. He argued it to be fundamentally unfair to the client and an irrational and arbitrary interpretation of the law, since it does not make sense to say the tenant on the eighth floor affects the tenant on the first floor. He stated if this was an office condominium building, the ownership does not change the application of the Code, but owning their individual spaces, a common landlord would not even be involved. He further stated it is his opinion those costs not listed in the application would not be applicable. He explained the only improvements to the common areas have been to the restrooms and parking areas, which neither has had costs that relate to what would trigger vertical accessibility. He stated any costs of record would be tenant improvements. He asked the Commission to take the position when there is unrelated space and not in the same path of travel they should not add up. He explained he did not believe the cost information should be necessary for the Commission to make a determination. He stated if the Commission took half of the cost of the vertical accessibility estimate provided it would be equivalent to at least fifty percent of the alteration.

Mr. Kelegian pointed out to the Chairman and Commission members this is a Council recommendation for deferral not denial. He stated the applicant’s arguments were relevant and appropriate to express at this stage. He further stated those arguments would be ultimately directed to the Commission’s future decision of denial or granting of the waiver. He explained the concern of the Code and the Commission in accessibility and vertical accessibility matters is to ensure owners of buildings provide appropriate accessibility. He stated the relevant language of 11.4.1.6 in this regard is designed to facilitate that rational goal. He continued by stating there is a rational basis for this rule and a rational basis for the council’s recommendation for deferral for this application. He stated his preliminary assessment would be the arguments of equal protection are not of great concern at his point, as long as there is a rational basis for the rule and the Commission’s interpretation of that rule and there are no highly suspect classes present to trigger strict scrutiny. Mr. Kelegian then stated with regard to the obligation of tenant in this matter, the Code requires the owner of the building to provide vertical accessibility. He explained that may fall on the tenant in many or most of these cases of multiple tenant circumstances. He stated the outcome of any case might be, in theory, difficult for a particular tenant to handle. He reiterated the Code and the Commission’s primary concern is vertical accessibility be provided and the owner is required and be responsible for providing that accessibility. He stated the nature of the understanding between any given tenant and any given owner is not the concern of the Commission. He further stated he was not dismissing Mr. Fine’s basic argument of his tenant possibly being on the short end of the stick in terms of the application of this rule. He concluded by stating he believed the Council to be on firm ground in terms of the legalities, the rational basis for the existence of this rule and the council’s interpretation of the rule in submitting it’s recommendation for deferral to the Commission.

Mr. Melick stated his concern with the law specifically is the allowance to calculate for three years to determine disproportionate costs. He explained the purpose behind that allowance is simply to stop the tenants or owners in the building from breaking up the alteration work into small segments to avoid accessibility requirements. He continued by explaining if the alteration work is done in smaller phases over a period of time accessibility is never reached. He stated the intent is to look at the three year period and if there are no costs, the disproportionality cannot be determined. He further stated other alterations made to the building within those costs, toward the twenty percent, even though twenty percent of total cost may have been spent; it may not be relevant to that case at all. Mr. Melick continued by stating it should not be separated by tenants in a building or accessibility will never be seen in existing buildings that have multiple tenants, which is not the intent of the Code. He concluded the Council is not denying, but deferring to get those costs, review them, and compare them to what has been done to determine a true hardship. He explained without those costs, the Council was unable to make that determination.

Commissioner Wiggins asked for clarification concerning whether the three year period is a statutory requirement placed by law to calculate disproportionate costs.

Mr. Kelegian responded it was in the rule.

Commissioner Wiggins asked specifically what the reason for the recommendation of deferral was as it seems with all arguments presented it would be a denial.

Mr. Melick stated if the building official said there were no renovations or alterations to the building over the last three years, the waiver would have been granted. He assumed the Council would have approved it under the disproportionate rule of the statute. He stated the building official indicated work had been done during the last three years, but no costs were provided to the council to determine disproportionate value. He further stated there was no problem with the disproportionality based on $65,000.00. He concluded by stating the Council’s concern was the building official’s statement of construction activity during the last three years and there was no cost presented. He explained if the cost of that construction made the current costs not disproportionate, the Council did not want to approve a request that may trigger the requirement.

Commissioner Greiner asked if Mr. Fine had the opportunity to get in touch with the building official to request the information necessary to prevent further delay.

Mr. Fine explained he had been in a Structural TAC meeting and had not been able to contact the Coral Gables building official.

Commissioner Greiner asked if Mr. Fine felt he could get the information in a reasonably short period of time.

Mr. Fine responded yes.

Commissioner Greiner asked Mr. Melick if the Advisory Council felt this information was necessary to make a decision.

Mr. Melick stated the information is necessary to verify all cost factors of the work completed to determine disproportionate costs.

Commissioner Sanidas moved approval of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Gross stated he believed the question to be the three year period of review. He stated anything coming back as completed for accessibility, such as parking or bathrooms, during those three years would also be counted toward the twenty percent.

Mr. Melick stated this was correct. He explained in addition to the description of the work completed the amount spent for those improvements should also be included in those costs for disproportionality. He stated tenant improvements are common, but may not have too much to do with accessibility in terms of costs.

Chairman Browdy asked if the larger question were not if cumulative costs accrued to the owner or to the space itself. He stated if so, it was a much larger question and possibly the subject of a declaratory statement in the future to give guidance to petitioners, as well as members of the Council and the Commission. He further stated Mr. Fine raised a question with a significant point. He added at some point a decision must be made as to whether these cumulative costs are space specific, owner specific or even tenant specific. He stated he did not believe there was any clarity at present relative to that, which raises his concern on acting on the waiver request at this meeting.

Commissioner Wiggins asked with regard to past remodeling and adjustments in the building, would there not have been a requirement at each permitting to have shown or spent twenty percent toward accessibility at each remodel. He asked in doing so as those remodels were brought forward the twenty percent would have been reached and would the new remodel just need to show the twenty percent if the others had been in compliance with the law.

Mr. Melick stated the rule states three years are considered for disproportionality, but the twenty percent is applied to the primary function area being altered. He explained if the area has had accessibility because there is an elevator in the building, which is the case in this situation, and nothing had to be done because the restrooms were accessible, there would be no twenty percent toward the primary area being altered. He stated this particular alteration triggers the vertical accessibility because of the area the alteration is taking place. He further stated during the three year period, the entire building is counted but it may trigger a specific tenant to meet that vertical accessibility to that path of travel to that primary function area being altered. He stated it does not state if the building owner, not the tenant, would be required to pay as it is in a common area access to that facility. He explained the vertical accessibility would be in the common area but it was the alteration to the tenant space that triggered the requirement. He concluded by stating the area is very grey and he was not certain if there had been a case law to work through this particular case or not. He stated without it, the Council took the side of protecting those with disabilities and insisted on looking at the entire picture from that perspective.

Chairman Browdy reiterated the recommendation from the Council was for deferral.

Mr. Fine stated with respect to the Council and the Chairman, he believed the regulation was selectively cited for the position they are charged with advocating. He stated where the rule talks about the total of alterations done over the three years, there is another regulation that states: “when a tenant does renovations or alterations in their space; the obligations do not cross the lease line”. He referenced declaratory statement DCA04-DEC-233 in the matter of Ashley and Associates and read “the provision of the federal code of regulations cited above specifically recognizes the circumstance of a tenant renovating space and specifically relieves a landlord of the responsibility to make alterations to areas under the landlord’s control that are not otherwise being altered” sites the 28CFR36.403D; number 5 “therefore in a multi tenant office building, when a tenant permits and performs an alteration limited to the tenant’s space, the petitioner is not obligated to provide accessibility in the common area. The path of travel obligation triggered by the alteration is limited to those areas within those areas of the tenant’s leased spaces.” Mr. Fine stated this was a final order from this Commission in a similar case of where are dollars attributed, which indicated the obligation stopped at the lease line. He concluded by stating whether the waiver request was deferred or not, he needed to have it submitted for the record as considered by the Commission to show a statement on the record.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he did not agree with giving any variances, but in this case he expressed agreement with Mr. Fine. He explained in the federal regulations it is clearly defined. He stated it speaks to the obligations in series of smaller alterations. He further stated in federal ADA, the obligation to provide an accessible path of travel may not be evaded by performing a series of smaller alterations to the area served. He explained this would refer only to the area being served, not the entire building. Commissioner Norkunas continued by stating the federal regulations also state “if alterations are undertaken within three years of the original alterations, the total cost of the alterations to the primary function area on that path of travel”. He stated those statements he referenced are key statements he testifies to regularly in federal court. He concluded by stating the sole issue being discussed is the area to that point. He stated if there were ten million dollars in renovations being done on other floors; it would have no bearing on the situation Mr. Fine has brought to the Commission’s attention.

Chairman Browdy called for a vote on the motion. Vote to approve the motion for Council’s recommendation for deferral resulted in 13 in favor, 6 opposed. Motion passed.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

Chairman Browdy directed the Commission to Commissioner Carson for presentation of entity approvals.

Commissioner Carson presented the POC recommendations for entity approval in the form of a motion as follows:

TST 4205, Progressive Engineering, Inc. - Product Testing Laboratory

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 2609, Architectural Testing, Inc. - Product Testing Laboratory

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 1555, American Test Lab, North - Product Testing Laboratory

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

QUA 4375, Gabert-Abuzalaf AIA and Associates - Product Quality Assurance Entity

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion for deferral was unanimous. Motion carried.

CER1508, Window and Door Manufacturers Association - Product Certification Agency

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion for deferral was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 1657, Fenestration Testing Lab - Product Testing Laboratory

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion for deferral was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 6127, Ramtech Laboratories, Inc. - Product Testing Laboratory

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion for deferral was unanimous. Motion carried.

QUA 6128, Ramtech Laboratories, Inc. - Product Quality Assurance Entity

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion for deferral was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 6485, ENCON Technology, Inc. – Product Testing Laboratory

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion for deferral was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair then presented the products for approval as they appeared in the matrix provided to each Commissioner. Recommended approvals were presented in consent agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals, and denials being considered individually. (See Florida Building Commission Product Approval Applications)

Certification Method

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 183-R2;1258-R2; 2690-R2; 2690-R2; 3281-R1; 3284-R1; 3663-R3; 4129-R3; 4130-R2; 4131-R2; 4132-R2;4705-R2; 5025-R1; 5726-R1; 6649; 6687; 7056-R1;7428; 7817; 7844-R1; 7861-R1; 7864-R1; 7897-R1; 7910-R1; 7919-R1; 7923-R2; 7930-R2; 7943-R2; 7979; 7980; 7986; 8019; 8160-R1; 8161-R1; 8208-R1; 8224-R1; 8229-R1; 8230; 8231; 8232; 8233; 8234; 8238; 8256; 8259; 8260; 8264; 8267; 8273; 8275; 8276; 8288; 8290; 8292; 8293; 8295; 8299; 8300; 8301; 8317; 8321; 8326; 8335; 8336; 8337; 8338; 8340; 8351; 8352; 8355; 8361; 8370; 8374; 8378; 8394; 8399; 8400; 8401; 8402; 8409; 8410; 8411; 8412; 8418; 8419; 8420; 8421; 8424; 8425; 8428; 8429; 8430; 8431; 8434; 8435; 8437; 8438; 8439; 8440; 8442; 8443; 8444; 8445; 8449; 8451; 8452; 8455; 8456; 8457; 8458; 8462; 8464; 8467; 8468; 8471; 8473; 8488; 8490; 8493; 8494; 8495; 8498; 8500; 8506; 8507; 8509; 8511; 8513; 8514; 8515;8516; 8517; 8518; 8519; 8520

Commissioner Carson moved approval for the consent agenda. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Conditional Approval

5582-R1 Bay City Window Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the design pressure is larger than on certification.

Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

5583-R1 Bay City Window Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating there is a single product; combine information into single model line.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

7027 Southeastern Door Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating limits of use shall include limitations as per review from certification agency for use outside “HVHZ”.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

7896 Republic Powdered Metals, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating correct ASTM D1127 typo and remove FM4470 not part of NOA.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8268 Quaker Window Products Company, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating remove lines .1 and .3 they are non-applicable; design pressure is missing on application; and installation instructions do not indicate attachment to structure.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8270 Quaker Window Products Company, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating remove line .2; Design pressure is missing on application; and installation instructions do not indicate attachment to structure.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8395, 8396 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated the products were recommended for conditional approval stating the final NOA needed to be uploaded.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8403 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated the products were recommended for conditional approval stating the certification agency certificate is not for applicant.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8404 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the certification agency certificate from WDMA Product Number is missing; could not verify certification.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8453 Winco Window Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating there is no certification for Product 8453.2. The applicant needs to provide certification or remove the product.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8483, 8486 Columbia Commercial Building Products

Mr. Blair stated the product s were recommended for conditional approval stating the application and the certificate do not comply with Sect. 1714.5.2.1; complete AAMA 101 test or equivalent.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8499 Secure-Lite Window Company, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the product was not tested as a window; limits of use shall indicate product may not be used as a window.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8528 Masonite International

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating there is rational analysis on the application; FL PE shall validate the rational analysis.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Deferral

2691-R1 Windoworld Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant needs to remove unsigned draft notice for plastic requirements for Miami Dade and use the proper AAMA certification for Rayhau testing; remove certification for FER requirements, as this is a fixed window; and provide proper and final certification for laminate.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

2699-R1 Windoworld Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant needs to remove unsigned draft notice for plastic requirements for Miami Dade and use the proper AAMA certification for Rayhau testing; and provide proper and final certification for laminate.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

2701-R1 Windoworld Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant needs to provide threshold detail as tested for both inswing and outswing; and provide final certification on laminate.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

7397 Homefront Homes, LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the application has two different and or subcategories (Panel wall and roof deck); the certification does not indicate if the design load has a safety factor; roof panel details do not indicate attachment to structure; and ASTM E330 is not a proper test for roof panels uplift or shear value.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Denial

4453-R1 Westshore Glass Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial stating this product is not certified by the certification agency.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8305 No-Burn, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial stating this product is for fire protection and outside the scope of Rule-9B-72; standard UL 723 is not FBC approved; and there is no UL certification uploaded.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Incomplete Applications

Product #’s: 3024-R2; 8387; 8447

No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Architect or Engineer

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 871-R2; 872-R2; 3862-R2; 3876-R2; 4249-R2; 4594-R3; 5362-R1; 5610-R1; 6218-R5; 6869-R1; 6964-R1; 7273; 7401; 7412; 7413; 7785; 7941-R1; 8033-R1; 8056; 8081; 8200-R1; 8217-R1; 8235; 8240; 8250; 8255; 8261; 8263; 8265; 8316; 8319; 8332; 8344; 8346; 8347; 8360; 8362; 8363; 8377; 8380; 8382; 8384; 8386; 8398; 8426; 8436; 8450; 8454; 8461; 8465; 8472; 8505; 8521; 8523; 8524.

Commissioner Kim requested product #’s 8380; 8386 be pulled from the consent agenda. He stated he needed to abstain from a vote on those products.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8380

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried. (Commissioner Kim abstained.)

8386

Recommended for Conditional Approval

1901-R3 Simpson Strong-Tie Co.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to upload the installation instructions to the application; comply with Sect.2321.7 “Devices with values less than 700 pounds, indicate not for HVHZ”.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

3741-R2 Transamerican Strukturoc, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to indicate “No” for use within HVHZ unless tested for HVHZ requirements (TAS201, 202 and 203 and exposure).

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

4117-R1 Reddi Form

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating there is no Certificate of Independence uploaded by Evaluating PE; application has Category: Structural Components; Subcategory: Installation Form Systems; Evaluation Report by PE has Category: Foundation Walls; Subcategory: Molded Expanded Polystyrene.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

4350-R1; 4381-R1 TSG Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the products were recommended for conditional approval stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing; there is no information uploaded for Product 4350.1; testing was not with duration and sequence as required by TAS 202 for HVHZ; test reports are not signed and sealed by FL PE; lab drawings with testing lab seal have not been provided; and installation instructions do not indicate attachment to structure.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

7475 National Shutter Association

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the label note indicates manufacturer other than the applicant.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8274 Fast Industries, Ltd.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide justification for the 74 inch missile, or correct the typo on the length of the missile.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8522 Right Concept

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to comply with Ch 26 weather requirements or indicate not for HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8141-R1 StormWatch

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for use outside HVHZ indicate porosity; for inside HVHZ remove spans smaller than tested; and deflection needs to be tested.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8211 All American Shutters, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating this was a conditional approval from February 2006 FBC; the applicant needs to upload notarized letter transferring test report to applicant; complied with: remove from table spans with design loads above highest tested for transverse load or cycling; radius cut panels not tested, remove.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8239 Simpson Strong-Tie Co.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing; Category is Structural Components, Subcategory is Wood Connectors; Evaluation report has Category as Steel Connectors; comply with Sect. 2321.7 “Devices with values less than 700 pounds indicate not for HVHZ.”

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8248 Wayne-Dalton Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8345 General American Door

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8405 Wayne-Dalton Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing; provide evidence for compliance for doors wider than 22 ft.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8416 Creaton AG

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to add language providing for quarterly reports into Evaluation reports.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8281 TSG Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing; testing was not with duration and sequence as required by TAS 202 for HVHZ; test reports are not signed and sealed by FL PE; lab drawings with testing lab seal have not been provided; and installation instructions do not indicate attachment to structure.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8310 Petersen Aluminum Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating 580-03 is not an adopted testing standard in the 2004 (2006) FBC.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8381 Atrium Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating there is no verifiable evidence of testing for TAS 202 uploaded under Evaluation reports; rating of windows does not comply with Sect. 1714.5.2.1 by using higher pressures than tested.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8390 Builders Hardware Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the grade of wood is not specified; verify ASTM D638, tensile test, on controlled and weather door skin specimens that they are plus/minus 10 percent per FBC 2612.22 and also verify polyfiber jam complies with Ch. 26.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8432 Alutech United, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing; application does not indicate structural load standard (ASTM E330).

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8478 Silverline Building Products Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating evaluation refers to concrete screw; specify which concrete screw is used.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8496 Martin Door Manufacturing

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating Sect. 1714.5.3.1 requires sectional doors to be tested in accordance with ANSI/DASMA 108 or TAS 202; installation drawings indicate sections larger than tested; glazing detail is not indicated.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8529 Schuco, USA L.P.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to comply with Ch 26 weathering requirements or indicate not for HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Deferral

7484 Baker Metal Works & Supply

8392 Modern Metal Systems Inc.

8393 Marlyn Metal, Inc.

8407 Gulf Coast Supply & Mfg, Inc.

8408 Florida Southern Roofing

8413 Mid Metal Roofing Manufacturing & Supply, Inc.

8414 Thompson Construction and Remodeling

8415 Metal Building Supplies, LLC

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for deferral stating the fire barrier is not optional for TAS110, remove the word optional, or indicate no for HVHZ; accreditation body to review the multiple tests on a single day at the test facility.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8391 Architectural Metal Fabrication/Gutter Drainage

8406 Triad Corrugated Metals

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for deferral stating the signed and sealed hardcopy of the evaluation report is missing; fire barrier is not optional for TAS110, remove the word optional, or indicate no for HVHZ; accreditation body to review the multiple tests on a single day at the test facility.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Denial

6422-R1 Folding Shutter Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial stating the applicant used comparative analysis for a storm bar from tests by the same manufacturer used with a different type shutter; used comparative analysis with a mullion from another manufacturer; was a Conditional Approval from Feb 2007 FBC with conditions of: remove page 25/41 from test report, this page does not refer to the test; there is no evidence of rational analysis or impact testing for storm bars or mullions.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

6423-R2 Folding Shutter Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant used comparative analysis with a mullion from another manufacturer; was a Conditional Approval from Feb 2007 FBC; there is no evidence of rational analysis or impact testing for mullions; drawings uploaded are not signed and sealed; tests and drawings conflict on grade of metal.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8526 Sun Metals Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the product, railing, is outside the scope Rule 9B-72.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Incomplete Applications

Product #’s: 4307-R1; 4690-R1; 4871-R2; 4990-R1; 7179; 8061; 8349

No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Test Report

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 4110-R1; 5021-R1; 7671; 8114; 8125; 8197; 8262; 8343; 8348; 8474.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Conditional Approval

5944-R1 Corrim Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating anchors on installation instructions are not as tested; glass detail on installation instructions is not as tested; for size 3’ x 6’ there was a single specimen.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

6533 PGI Fabrene Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to change exposure limitation to less than 180 days; indicate 90 days on all installation instructions.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8257 DORMA Architectural Hardware

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the validator is not independent from testing laboratory; Certificate of Independence is not applicable to testing method; test report is not signed and sealed by FL P; there is no structural load test on application; remove reference to Miami-Dade Product Control Approval on test report.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8357 Palram Americas, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the fastener spacing on installation drawings is in conflict with test report for product 83571; indicate min glass separation is 5.64 in. for max cyclic pressure on specimen 6; on product 8357.2 indicate min glass separation is 6.63 in. on specimen. 5 or indicate not for HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8364; 8367; 8368 Winco Window Company

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the test reports are not signed and sealed by FL PE; laminate certification provided is not same material as on the test report; test report is soon to expire.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8366 Winco Window Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the test reports are not signed and sealed by FL PE; laminate certification provided is not same material as on the test report; test report is expired, provide valid test report.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8446 Door Engineering and Manufacturing

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the limits of use shall indicate door not tested for air and water infiltration; provide compliance with TAS 202 forced entry requirements.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8492 PSI Industries, Inc. DBA PSI Olney Door

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating on the limits of use indicate that system is porous; correct glazing separation on laboratory drawings; test indicates 6 1/2" deflection, drawing indicates 4" separation. Remove product .2, it is a repeat. Indicate small missile test is performed, else not for HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8497 VENETIAN ROOF TILE, INC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval statingthe applicant needs to remove test reports that are not signed and sealed by a FL PE; place test report on the proper location on application; remove ASTM 7 from application; add language providing for quarterly reports into limits of use, other..

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Deferral

8279 Winco Window Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the test reports are not signed and sealed by FL PE; each model is a different subcategory window; separate the applications.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Denial

7985 Aerosmith Fastening Systems

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial stating the testing laboratory not accredited for ASTM E330 at time of testing; testing reports not signed and sealed by FL PE; presented a letter from a FL PE describing the test but was not witnessing the test.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Incomplete Applications

Product #’s: 4999; 5755-R1, 7101; 7973; 7974; 8356; 8369.

No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Entity

Product #’s: 814-R1; 7162-R1; 7981; 8199; 8245; 8283.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Conditional Approval

7987 MiTek Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide compliance with ASTM D1761 or indicate not for HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER LEGAL ISSUES AND PETITIONS FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT:

BINDING INTERPRETATIONS:

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

Mr. Richmond stated to date one binding interpretation has been finalized. He further stated a hard copy request from an attorney had been received without appropriate fees for another binding interpretation, which will be returned to him. He explained the system does require submission by the electronic format through the Building Code information system.

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

DCA06-DEC-287 by Phillip Stoller of Perma-Column, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated Paul Grivas, an extern from Florida State University would be presenting the second hearing declaratory statements.

Mr. Grivas explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA06-DEC-294 by Joseph R. Webster of Atlantic Windows & Doors, Inc.

Mr. Grivas explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Greiner asked for clarification as to whether the products would be accepted without being subject to Florida Product Approval as there was a discrepancy in the report and the computer.

Mr. Grivas explained it would be accepted, but it still has to have product approval.

Commissioner Greiner asked for further clarification as to whether this would be considered under new and innovative technology.

Chairman Browdy offered for clarification the product is a new and innovative product but it still has to come before the Commission.

Commissioner Kim referenced paragraph four in the declaratory statement , to be consistent with the first reading, the answer is yes, but in paragraph five the answer should be no. He stated the rest of that paragraph was consistent with the first reading.

Chairman Browdy stated the declaratory statement intends to reflect it will be acknowledged as a new and innovative product, but it does have to come before the Commission for approval. He asked staff to correct the ambiguities.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA06-DEC-300 by Thomas Miller, PE of Structural Engineering & Inspections

Mr. Grivas explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Wiggins proposed corrections to the wording of the declaratory statement to improve clarity. He referenced page 2, paragraph 4, second line stating after the word “possibility of” he would recommend inserting “determining this building location to be”. He stated it would read “eliminating the possibility of determining this building location to be” and then exposure C. He further stated he would make those same changes generically under number 5 after the word “possibility of” which is on the second line from the bottom. He continued by referencing item number 6 on the second line “to be located” he would add the words “in exposure B”. Commissioner Wiggins concluded by referencing paragraph 8, second line after “to be located” he recommended leave “exposure B” and omit “zone”. He stated making those changes would unify the terminology in each of the locations.

Commissioner Bassett stated he would be abstaining from the vote.

Commissioner Kim stated staff read the recommendations from the first reading which was accurate. He further stated the second draft needed changes including: the 4^th paragraph needs to be omitted; the 6^th paragraph needs to be omitted; the 8^th paragraph is consistent with Commissioner Wiggins’ revisions but the answers based on the first reading need to be included in the statement.

Chairman Browdy stated there seemed to be some confusion relative to the direction either to send it back to the committee or defer action.

Mr. Madani stated he had made the corrections based on those comments.

Chairman Browdy stated if the Commission would be taking action on this, it would need to have copies of what it is acting on before it takes action. He further stated if copies could be distributed to the commissioners action could be taken on it; otherwise there would need to be a deferral.

Commissioner Greiner stated his concern is the correct language needs to be very specific relative to Exposure C for this item. He expressed concern to not have it categorized as defining Exposure C for all of Florida. He stated this item is very specific for one situation and he expressed the need to have that language be very clear.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he believed the 5^th paragraph would also need to be omitted. He explained although the paragraph was accurate, there was no representation by the applicant that there were any water bodies around it. He stated since there was no discussion of that fact, this would be an untrue statement.

Commissioner Wiggins stated there had been discussion earlier indicating this would be subject to evaluation by the engineer for determination of the Exposure category and that language is also missing.

Commissioner Kim moved to table the motion until the second day of the current meeting to allow staff time to distribute copies of the statement with the revisions necessary. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-002 by Kari Hebrank of 4^th Floor Advocacy

Mr. Grivas explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Bahadori entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-011 by Billy Tyson, CBO, of Clemons, Rutherford & Associates, Inc.

Mr. Grivas explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Mr. Richmond stated this is a commonly used product and was approved by Clemons, Rutherford & Associates, Inc., who is the single entity responsible for plans review of factory built schools. He explained there was a concern regarding this as a significant departure from what has been being approved under certain test reports and is being used in international commerce at this point. He stated this matter was just recently raised with the department and he would ask this be deferred until next month to provide the opportunity to reach out to the industry to ensure they are aware of what lies ahead before it is dropped on them.

Chairman Browdy stated the request of Counsel was to defer action on the declaratory statement DCA07-DEC-011 until the next meeting.

Commissioner Greiner asked if Commissioner Hamrick had spoken regarding this.

Commissioner Hamrick stated he would concur with the recommendation to defer as there are some issues which need to be worked out.

Commissioner Hamrick moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

First Hearings:

DCA06-DEC-299 by Grant Tolbert of Hernando County Development Services

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-012 by Bob Littleton, Plumbing Chief, Hillsborough County

Mr. Richmond stated staff review determined sufficient facts and circumstances were not provided and the request will be dismissed as insufficient.

No Commission action necessary.

DCA07-DEC-016 by James M. Nicholas, Esquire, Townhomes of Suntree

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Sanidas entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Browdy asked if the Commission were required to address DCA07-DEC-012, which was dismissed, to take any action.

Mr. Richmond responded it was necessary. He explained staff reviews the statements before they are presented to the Commission and if staff has made the recommendation for dismissal, legal counsel has the authority to enter a dismissal.

DCA07-DEC-017 by Robert S. Fine, Esquire, TRG-BLOCK ONE

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Mr. Fine stated he would be representing TRG-BLOCK ONE. He explained he was before the Commission seeking a declaratory statement regarding Section 1519.16 of the 2006 amendments to the 2004 Florida Building Code. He explained he is seeking a statement that declares that the requirements set forth in 1519.16 do not apply to balconies and parking garage decks, when such balconies and decks are not part of the top surface of the building. He stated Section 1519.16 is in the roofing section under waterproofing.

Mr. Fine stated the reason his clients sent him to this meeting was because staff at the Miami Dade Code Compliance Office stated it was their interpretation that Section 1519.16 applies to balconies and parking garage decks. He continued by stating that office also stated they had discussions with their Broward counterparts, who took the same position. He stated since the intent of the Building Code is uniformity it would be appropriate for the Commission to issue a declaratory statement to resolve the issue with a consistency that might not exist if referred to local boards. He further stated it should also be known that staff from the Broward took the same position as Miami Dade County at the TAC meeting. He explained his client does not have the right, under chapter eight of the Miami Dade Code to go to that board and get an interpretation.

Mr. Fine stated in 2002 Miami Dade County issued and adopted waterproofing guidelines for balconies, terraces, plazas and decks. He further stated at the same time, the 2002 Building Code was coming into effect, someone from Miami Dade County submitted things into the Code which dealt with concerns such as the water resistance of concrete in balconies, slabs, decks, etc. He explained as buildings were coming to completion the building officials indicated this waterproofing needed to be on balconies to get TCO’s. He stated an appeal was made to the countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statute 553.73.4B stating this was an improper amendment to the Florida Building Code. He then stated the board ultimately determined it did not have the jurisdiction, because the board of rules and appeals intended these to be friendly guidance, not mandatory. He continued by stating there was an amendment proposed to the 2006 Building Code which was adopted and then in January the petitioner filed for a declaratory statement. He asked why is it that 1519.16 cannot apply to balconies and garage decks that are not a part of the top surface of the building. He stated it makes no sense for the provision as written to apply to balconies because the minimum one inch slope per square foot as prescribed is not appropriate for balconies. He explained if there was a five foot deep balcony, it would require adding an inch and a quarter in slab thickness, an eight foot deep balcony would require two inch thickness and larger balconies even more. He stated since most high rise buildings built with post tension construction or continuous slabs those slab thicknesses would carry out through the entire building creating an enormous structural burden in costs on the structures. He further stated Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code, as well as the federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines allow for a maximum slope of 1and 50 at door maneuvering areas which can extend out as much as five feet from the door. He also stated there would be fair housing act issues that would apply when these balconies or decks are common areas. He continued by stating the parking decks, accessible parking spaces and access aisles located on parking decks are also limited to a maximum slope of 1 and 50. He stated the applicable Code excerpt says in part “waterproofing systems may be installed in lieu of an improved roof system over sloped or horizontal decks specifically designed for pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic where the deck is above occupied or unoccupied space.” He further stated in new construction the minimum deck slope shall be one quarter in twelve. He stated that one in 48 is greater than one in 50 and ADA and Chapter 11 of the Fair Housing Act state it is 1 in 50. He stated a quarter inch in twelve slopes would require the ADA, Chapter 11 of the Building Code, Florida Statues 553, 501 through 504.1 and the Fair Housing Act if this applies to balconies and garage decks. He explained the plain reading of the Code does not provide for the provision to apply to balconies and parking garage decks that are not part of the top covering of the building. He continued by stating this is the Supreme Court saying that the rules which are used to interpret statutes apply to rules and the Florida Building Code is an administrative rule. He further stated the Supreme Court said when the language to be construed is unambiguous it must be recorded in its plain and ordinary meaning. He stated the rules of construction of statutes and rules require that the correct interpretation is when all parts of the regulation make sense. He further stated an interpretation cannot lead to an absurd result. He stated the subject provision is contained in Chapter 15, Roofs. He commented it would make more sense if it were listed under concrete for balconies or parking garage decks which are not part of the roof covering. He stated Section 1519 is under High Velocity Hurricane Zones Roof Coverings with slopes less than 2 in 12. He further stated roof covering is defined as an assembly of multiple field applied components or a single component designed to weatherproof a building’s top surface.

Mr. Fine continued by stating the fiscal impact information that was submitted when this was adopted is correct if it does not apply to balconies or parking garages, but it is incorrect if it does apply to them. He stated there was information in the record before the Structural TAC from two weeks ago indicating the cost of this waterproofing would be 3-7 dollars per square foot. He further stated in buildings that were submitted, typical high rise buildings that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per building to do this waterproofing. He then stated if the Commission ruled that 1519 does apply to balconies, it would create irreconcilable conflict in the Code because there is a minimum one quarter of an inch provision in 1519.16 and a minimum eighth inch per slope in 1926.545. He argued neither is more stringent because a quarter inch per foot is more stringent for roofing, but an eighth of an inch is more stringent for accessibility because it is less than the ADA has as its maximum. He continued by stating the two cannot exist in the Code if the county’s interpretation is correct. He stated if it is said that 1519.16 applies to balconies and garage decks would create a situation that violates federal law, the Florida Statutes. He also pointed out Florida has a certified accessibility code and if this were interpreted to say a 1 in 48 slope is appropriate where there areas of accessible parking and door maneuvering spaces, it might put the certification in jeopardy, because there would be an interpretation of the Code which plainly violates the ADA requirements.

Chairman Browdy asked if the issue had gone to the Accessibility TAC.

Mr. Fine answered it had not. He stated he did not believe the Accessibility TAC could do interpretations with the way the statutes had been changed. He then stated one of the issues brought up during the TAC was if the petitioner would be complying with ACA if the declaratory statement were adopted. He explained if the Code requires it, it has to be done. He stated another comment was the requirement is for new and existing buildings which would create problems for older buildings. He then statd if the Code is written wrong it should not be a reason to burden the persons who should not be affected by it. He explained if there were problems in existing buildings this section should not be adopted and then interpreted to fix it, but instead should fix the existing building code to say you don’t adopt the new requirements. He stated another issue presented was the slope of the garage was not a valid issue because in parking garages and accessible parking can be placed in flat surfaces at the ends near doors for the shortest routes. He stated this argument means asking the building official to waive a code requirement, which is not an option. Mr. Fine further stated another concern was interpreting roof covering if it were over interior inhabited space. He stated it would be acceptable to amend the declaratory statement to clearly state when it is not directly over interior inhabited space to eliminate that concern. He concluded by stating the amended statement would read “The provision 1519.16 does not apply to balconies and parking garage decks when they are not a part of the top surface of the building and they are not directly over enclosed inhabited space.”

Mr. Richmond stated he had originally thought this declaratory statement pertained specifically to balconies. He asked if parking garages are an element of this project.

Mr. Fine responded yes.

Mark Zaner, Miami Dade Building Code Compliance Office

Mr. Zaner stated he did not believe this was a roofing issue. He further stated a balcony is specifically referenced in Chapter 1926.5.5 if it is concrete. He then stated this had been discussed at the TAC two weeks ago. He explained if the requirement of number 5, which is an inch and one half inch of cover over the steel, is met then the other four requirements there do not have to be met if you want to use a one inch cover. He stated balconies are not addressed in 1519.16, but if it is a balcony issue and they are meeting that requirement, then no waterproofing is required. He does not understand why the declaratory statement is before the Commission or the TAC. He stated he asked the building official, Jose Ferris, in the city of Miami where this project is supposed to happen if any information was brought to him regarding the project and Mr. Ferris responded he had not received any information for alternate means for this project. He also stated the Board of Rules and Appeals had received neither plans nor designs to talk about this particular project. He stated he believed this was the determination of the Structural TAC. He further stated in Chapter 15, Section 15.2.2.1 stated “all roofing systems must be installed to ensure positive drainage.” He continued reading “In new construction the minimum deck slope shall not be less than a quarter inch.” He explained the same thing is written Section 1519.16 “In lieu of using a roofing system you can use waterproofing.” He stated there is a need for alternate means of doing design on buildings because of NFPA1.

Mr. Zaner explained there has to be different ways for application whether it is liquid-applied, waterproofing system that is the same as a roofing system, in planners? in some over occupied areas, balconies, terraces, plaza decks or parking garages. He stated there are a large number of buildings that are being restored in the city of Miami and Miami Beach and they are having to do something to make these decks waterproof. He further stated sometimes a type of overlay might be used such as tile or some type of a walking deck. He explained to do this it needs to be waterproof underneath. He stated provisions and guidelines are given through the Code to address these measures. He reiterated the belief that the situation brought forward by Mr. Fine has nothing to do with waterproofing if the requirements are met of the specific Code in place.

Jaime Gascon, Miami-Dade Office of Building Code Compliance

Mr. Gascon requested the Commission to uphold the Structural TAC recommendation and final vote which was to dismiss this declaratory statement for lack of information and send this back to the local board or local building official to have a look at what the specifics of the project would actually be. He stated if any denials or objections are actually put forth those could be appealed through the local process before it comes before the Commission.

Chairman Browdy asked it was true that the owner has no standing to go back to the board of appeals as Mr. Fine had indicated.

Mr. Gascon stated a set of plans that could be discussed to identify what the exact conditions are is not available. He further stated until that is available there is no information to make a determination.

Jack Glenn, Florida Home Builders Association

Mr. Glenn stated his concern was the lack of Mr. Fine’s inability to access the local board based on his testimony. He stated he had asked several members of the Miami Dade delegation and never did get a clear answer as to whether he had a right of access to their board. He stated it would appear in their rules that this would have to be done by a building official and not a private individual. He offered a reminder to the Commission that this is clearly a question about parking structure floors and balconies and the Section being cited from the Code is from the roofing section of the Code. He stated he has seen the guidelines and the case had been brought to him as the Director of the Homebuilders Association by a member from Dade County.He stated he had questioned if it could be a local amendment to the Code. He reported his answer was that a local amendment can be passed if they prove a need, but the amendment would need to be put in the appropriate section of the Code. He stated Chapter 15 deals with roofs and he is not sure how a balcony or a floor of a parking deck under the roofing provisions unless it is the upper most deck of the parking structure. He further stated he believed part of the problem to be the guidelines impose roofing standards on something that is not roofing.

Mr. Fine stated the building is located in the city of Miami Beach not the city of Miami so that is a different building official. He further stated legal has determined there is standing to be here.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification on his standing to be where.

Mr. Fine offered clarification that legal has determined proper standing to come before the Commission seeking a declaratory statement. He stated if they are saying this is an option and it is not mandatory then he believed them to be in agreement with what he is asking for. He further stated nothing states you cannot apply a roofing theme as an option and ask for an alternative. He reiterated all he is asking for is can the building official mandate that you have to put this requirement of Chapter 15 on the balconies and parking garages. He stated if this is an alternative option, there should be no objection to the request for the declaratory statement.

Mr. Richmond stated the committee initially had several concerns. He explained one of the original staff recommendations was to potentially dismiss this petition and deferral of it back to the local appeal board because there was a pending action at that time. He stated the action was a challenge to the local amendment and has since been resolved. He stated at this juncture we have a petitioner coming before the Commission asking for an interpretation of the Code section to govern his future conduct and that is an appropriate request for a declaratory statement. He then stated there had been some concern at the committee level that certain information was not provided in the petition and the committee members could discuss that further if they chose to. He explained it had to do with some technical standards. He stated the Commission should consider whether dismissal would be appropriate and if the information is relevant to the determination of the question presented which is whether the balconies and parking decks described in the petition are subject to the requirement s of 1519.16. He further stated if there was information missing from the petition that would aid in the Commission’s consideration then it should be dismissed for failure to provide that information. He offered clarification stating the Commission is prohibited in entering accessibility interpretation. He stated the accessibility issue had been raised as an argument and not a matter to be interpreted or applied by the Commission in this declaratory statement.

Commissioner Kidwell stated there was a lot of discussion in the TAC regarding this and the TAC was clear on what was lacking from this petition. He explained the plans are missing and different members of the TAC wondered if parts of this were over habitable space or unconditioned space. He stated the lack of information was the reason the TAC recommended dismissal.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval to uphold the committee’s recommendation for dismissal for lack of sufficient information. Commissioner Gonzalez entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins asked for clarification from the speaker from Miami Dade who had stated this was not a roofing issue and cited another section of the Code. He asked what the issue would be as it sounded like a roofing issue to him.

Mr. Zaner stated the section of the code he had reference was on balconies, Section 1926.5.5 of the Building Code which specifically discusses concrete balconies. He further stated the issue of 1519.16 had been discussed by the petitioner only. He explained if the instructions in Section 1926.5.5 of the Florida Building Code are followed, there are guidelines on how to eliminate having to use a water repellent or a saturant.

Commissioner Wiggins asked the petitioner if Section 1926.5.5 does not resolve the issue.

Mr. Fine stated Michael Goolsby of the Miami Dade Code Compliance Office stated his interpretation was that it did resolve the issue. He further stated if representatives of the office here state for the record that it unequivocally does not apply as a mandated requirement and the Commission dismisses it as moot because it has been declared for the record that it does not apply the petitioner would accept that.

Commissioner Bahadori stated Commissioner Wiggins’ question cleared up the Code requirement in his opinion. He further stated the Commission could at least state if Section 1519.1.6 applies to balconies or not. He stated the Commission could make that determination applies to roofs not balconies.

Chairman Browdy asked Commissioner Bahadori if he would be opposed to the motion for dismissal or if he would be for the motion for dismissal because of the way the petition was written.

Commissioner Bahadori stated he believed the Commission should make a clarification of that section of the Code applies to roofs not balconies.

Chairman Browdy asked Mr. Fine what he had said relative to a dismissal because it was moot.

Mr. Fine responded he had stated if representatives of the Miami Dade Code Compliance Office stated to this Commission on record that they do not consider that to be a mandatory requirement and does not apply to balconies and parking garages he believed the issue would become moot.

Chairman Browdy stated he did not believe this would be the opportunity to get an official opinion from the Miami Dade building department.

Commissioner Kim stated he was confused with Mr. Zaner’s testimony relative to this being a Chapter 19 issue and not a Chapter 15 issue. He further stated one of the motions made at the Structural TAC was that Chapter 15 does not apply, but Chapter 19 does, and the motion had resulted in a 3-3 vote.

Mr. Zaner stated the question put to the Commission is related to the necessity to waterproof balconies. He explained if reading 1926.5.5, item number 3 states “if there is one inch coverage there is a specific type of water repellent that can be used”. He further explained if item number 5 requirements were met, the coverage on top of the steel, the engineer or architect nor is the waterproofing required. He explained that would be a structural issue, not a roofing issue. He stated it would be pulled into roofing if someone wanted to do a balcony, waterproofed and tiled at which point the sections in roofs could provide the necessary guidelines to do so.

Commissioner Kim asked Mr. Fine if his client had applied for a permit and discussed this with the local jurisdiction.

Mr. Fine answered his client had not. He stated they are designing a high rise building and investing a lot of money and they want to know how to proceed. He further stated they build other buildings and this monetary issue will govern how they proceed forward. He stated his clients were told it was the opinion of the Miami Dade Code Compliance Office that is does apply.

Chairman Browdy asked Mr. Fine if he had anything in writing from the Code Compliance Office indicating that as the case.

Mr. Fine stated he did not.

Chairman Browdy asked if the meeting he had with the Code Compliance Office was a preliminary plan review meeting to specifically address this issue.

Mr. Fine stated the meeting was regarding the waterproofing issues and the local amendment which had been thrown out.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission was not here to determine whether any particular interpretation is correct or incorrect. He further stated the Commission is solely here to interpret the requirements of 1519.1.6 applied to the balconies and other areas as described in the petition. He continued by stating whether Miami Dade had ever made those statements was not relevant to the Commission’s consideration. He stated there was a conceptual question about the application of the Code to a set of circumstances.

Commissioner Kidwell stated the Purpose for his motion was to move forward. He stated he would like to call the question on it. He further stated if there was to be debate on other potential answers, the Commission should vote this motion up or down to determine what needs to be done to move forward.

Commissioner Kidwell moved to uphold the decision of the committee for dismissal of the declaratory statement. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted 11 in favor, 8 opposed. Motion passed.

DCA07-DEC-019 by Orlando Velez, Product Development, GSC

Mr. Richmond explained the petition is being dismissed as being an issue for local authorities having jurisdiction to resolve.

DCA07-DEC-020 by Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Collier County

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Goodloe moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-028 by Lee S. Rigby, President of Vertical Assessment Associates

Mr. Richmond stated this petition is beyond the scope of the Commission’s authority and will be dismissed.

No Commission action necessary.

DCA07-DEC-031 by Robert Lattin, Rapallo

Mr. Richmond stated this petitions was dismissed specific to the Fire Code which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.

DCA07-DEC-034 by Don Blalock, President, Quickbrick USA, LLC

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Gonzalez entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-038 by Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Collier County

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the committee’s recommendation. Commissioner Gonzalez entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RECESS UNTIL WEDNESDAY

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Richard Browdy at 8:31 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, at the Casa Monica Hotel, St. Augustine, Florida.

Chairman Browdy announced Commissioner Gross received word last night at 8:00pm that his mother had passed away unexpectedly and had to leave. He stated the Commission wished all the comfort and solace he can have at this most difficult time and would look forward in having him back at the Commission meeting in Tampa.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

Mr. Blair briefly conducted a review of the meeting agenda.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Browdy reviewed the discussion points of Chairman Rodriguez. He first addressed the issue of TAC appointments. He stated Dave Olmstead had agreed to serve on the Structural TAC. He further stated at the recommendation of the TAC chair, Commissioner Kim, several changes are to be made to the Structural TAC’s membership. He explained Craig Parrino would be moving from his current position to replace Bob Bitterle in the design/engineer position of the producer category. He stated C.W. Macomber will be added to the TAC in the industry position of the producer category. He stated Bob Boyer would be added to the window labeling work group.

Chairman Browdy next addressed the letter the Commission had requested the Chairman send to the Governor regarding the delayed implementation of the Windborne Debris Requirements. He stated at the February meeting, the Commission authorized the Chairman to send a letter to Governor Crist supporting a delayed effective date for the legislatively mandated changes to Rule 9B-3.047 of no earlier than July 1, 2007. He explained the letter would have only been sent, according to the action of the Commission, if deemed appropriate based on the Governor’s office requesting Commission support and having authority to effect the implementation date. He stated the letter was not sent since the Governor’s office determined they did not have the authority to delay the implementation of the law.

Chairman Browdy then addressed the issue of the education of the Windborne Debris Requirement legislative changes. He stated at the February meeting the Commission voted to amend the contract with BASF to include an additional 100,000.00 to design and provide education and training on the special session legislation, including the changes revising the wind speed map; to remove the panhandle exception to the windborne debris region; revising the definition of windborne debris region; to remove the panhandle exception; removing the interior pressure design option from the Code and insurance discounts for Code compliance. He reported the contract had been amended for the education and training on these new provisions.

Chairman Browdy then discussed the issue of the Prototype Building Administrator. He stated the current administrator gave his notice at the February meeting. He explained the Commission had voted in February to instruct the DCA staff to contact the bidders who responded to the RFP regarding serving as the Prototype Building Program Administrator to determine if they were interested in completing the contract to serve as Program Administrator. He stated as a result of discussions with other bidders the current administrator will maintain their role through June 30, 2007, completing the contract. He further stated the Product Approval POC will discuss how to proceed and make its recommendations to the Commission subsequent to the contract expiration.

Chairman Browdy addressed the Windborne Debris Study Research Group. He stated at the February meeting the Commission voted to continue with the existing contract with ARA University of Florida to conduct terrain effect studies for wind pressure design, but to modify the contract in order to not consider windborne debris. He stated the study is for the 2006-2007 fiscal year existing contract amount of 250,000.00. He stated the contract is being modified and the researchers are proceeding with the redefined scope of the contract. He also stated the Commission had voted to fund a research project to develop insurance qualifying criteria for buildings built within 2500 feet of the coast after 2009. He further stated the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee recommended the Commission establish a performance goal of developing criteria based on a 250 year storm event. He stated to accomplish this HRAC recommended that the Commission pursue the contracting necessary to contract with ARA University of Florida for fiscal year 2007-2008 in the amount of 250,000.00. He reported the contract is being modified to begin work on this assignment and the fiscal year 2007-2008 contract will be developed to complete the work.

Chairman Browdy discussed the issue of the letter to the building officials regarding House Bill 001 Special Session Legislation. He stated at the February meeting the Commission voted to authorize the chairman to send a letter to local jurisdictions informing them of the HB 0001 legislation and the Code issues affected by the changes, including revising the wind speed maps to remove the panhandle exception to the windborne debris region, revising the definition of the windborne debris region to remove the panhandle exception and removing the interior pressure design option from the Code. He reported the letter has been drafted and is now posted on the Commission website and the BOAF website.

Chairman Browdy then discussed a letter regarding support for the Commission attendance by building officials. He stated in response to public comment at the February meeting the Commission voted to authorize the chairman to write a letter on behalf of the Commission informing local jurisdictions of the importance of building officials attending and participating in the Florida Building Code Commission processes. He reported the letter was developed and is now posted to both the Commission and BOAF websites.

Chairman Browdy stated regarding public comment request follow-ups the Commission and the DCA staff have always taken appropriate action on public comment requests and to that end the Commission instituted a new method for monitoring follow up to public comment requests. He further stated in the Commissioner’s agenda packets there was a section which summarizes requests and reports on Commission and staff follow-up efforts. He reported that agenda packet is available on the Commission’s website.

Chairman Browdy discussed issues relative to the Termite Workgroup. He stated as a result of issues arising during the Structural TAC code amendment review process meeting and at the request of workgroup members, the Commission is reconvening the Termite Workgroup who will deliver their recommendations to the Structural TAC for review at the TACs June meeting to review comments and proposed Code amendments. He stated the workgroup will meet to develop acceptable language to address, to the extent possible, Structural and Plumbing TAC concerns regarding proposed amendments that were not approved by the TAC. He also stated the Window Labeling Workgroup would be reconvened and as a result of issues arising during the Structural TACs code amendment review process meeting. He reported at the request of workgroup members the Window Labeling workgroup will meet during the morning of April 10^th 2007 and will deliver their recommendations to the Structural TAC for review at the TACs June meeting to review comments on proposed code amendments. He explained the scope would be limited to discussing a template for installation instructions submitted for product approval.

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan March 2007)

Commissioner Bassett moved approval of criteria set forth for the legislative mandate for insurance criteria. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Dixon continued his review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan March 2007)

Bob Boyer, Building Officials Association of Florida

Mr. Boyer asked for a review of the circumstances under which code modifications which were rejected initially by the TAC can be brought back up for discussion and reconsideration.

Mr. Dixon explained that under the current 2007 Code development process there is a transition to a new process where the TACs will review comments on proposals where there was a second for consideration. He stated if there was a proposal which did not receive a second the TAC would not look at those proposals again. He further stated if there was a withdrawal of a proposal by the proponent the TAC would not look at those proposals again. He stated if there was no comment on the TAC recommendation, those proposals would not be revisited. He explained the proposals that will be revisited will be the ones that have substantive proposed change to the TAC recommendation such as a wording change to address the concern of the TAC the first time around. He stated the point of this was to get to the point that the proponent can interact with the TAC and identify what the weaknesses in their proposals are. He continued by stating if the TAC thought it was a good proposal but it had some concerns, the proponent would have the opportunity to address those concerns and then the TAC could review the proposal again.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the proposal had to have a second and a proposed change.

Mr. Dixon responded stating it had to have a second and either failed to get a recommendation for approval or received a recommendation for approval. He stated if someone presented a substantive change to the language that is subject to the recommendation there would be a review of that proposed changed language.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the updated workplan. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Browdy stated there was a revised copy of declaratory statement DCA06-DEC-300 for review and consideration. He stated the issue of the declaratory statement was tabled and requested a motion to remove the issue from the table for reconsideration by the Commission.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to remove issue relative to DCA07-DEC-300 off table for reconsideration. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Bassett reiterated he would be abstaining from the vote.

Mr. Grivas stated the Commission had recommended some changes and with the assistance of Mo Madani those changes had been made. He reviewed the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files. He stated with direction from the Commission, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 were omitted. He stated he inserted language in paragraph 5 referring to the fact final determination should be made by a design professional based on review of site specific circumstances and conditions with regard to the term scattered obstruction.

Commissioner Greiner asked if this did not refer to any specific development. He stated the way it reads it applies to anything that structural engineering and inspections incorporated on behalf of Taylor Woodward Homes is constructing.

Mr. Grivas stated a specific lot was cited in paragraph 3.

Commissioner Greiner asked if lot number 19 is the only one being discussed relative to this declaratory statement.

Mr. Grivas responded he was correct.

Commissioner Wiggins stated in item number 5, it may be a technical question with regard to an appeal. He explained it seemed a little conflicting because on one hand the answer is Exposure B, based on the petitioner’s question and lot 19, but on the other hand the final determination is left up to the design professional. He stated in Chapter 1, an appeal can be directed to a building official, but if it were a design professional, a private entity. He asked where an appeal would be directed.

Chairman Browdy stated he believed priority deference would be given to the design professional as opposed to the Commission’s opinion. He further stated the Commission’s opinion was solicited and given, but it stated this is the opinion not withstanding the opinion of the Commission, would be it’s Exposure B, we would defer to the design professional.

Mr. Grivas stated he concurred with Chairman Browdy’s statement.

Commissioner Kim stated the discussion at the TAC was very specific. He explained this was a licensed engineer doing site specific using his license for seal. He stated any process for which the design professional would make a determination under the rules of his practice. He further stated if the building official did not agree, as with any other engineering calculation, he has the authority to question the judgment or recommendation of the design professional. He reiterated it would be under the licensed professional he would have to make a determination under the rules of engineering.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the declaratory statement as amended. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried. Commissioner Bassett abstained.

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-72, PRODUCT APPROVAL

Chairman Browdy stated the Product Validation workgroup worked together for over one year to develop a consensus package of recommendations regarding validation requirement of the product approval rule. He further stated the workgroup had concluded their work in June of 2006 and the Commission reviewed the recommendations during the fall of 2006. He then stated the Commission’s Product Approval POC held a special meeting on January 24^th 2007 to review the proposed changes and to provide the POC’s recommendation to the Commission. He stated the POC met again on February 5^th 2007 and agreed with the additional recommendations that were proposed by staff changes. Chairman Browdy further stated at the February rule development workshop, the Commission adopted the changes recommended by the POC. He explained the supplemental workshop provides the opportunity for public comment on the proposed revisions before the Commission proceeds with rule adoption on Rule 9B-72, Product Approval.

Chairman Browdy then directed the Commission to Mr. Richmond who served as hearing officer.

Mr. Richmond called the hearing to order.

Jaime Gascon, Miami-Dade Office of Building Code Compliance

Mr. Gascon offered brief comment relative to the checklist which is part of the proposal. He stated there were some language issues as he indicated at the Product Approval POC. He explained it is basically sending the user to another checklist or the method of review indicating another method of compliance. He stated he believed the checklist needs to direct the user to specifically where it should go. He referenced, for example, the validation checklist for approval under the certification method and in the case of rational analysis it then sends the user to another method of compliance. He stated in the testing checklist rational analysis does not fit into that checklist or method. He then stated he would be submitting those comments to staff so the language corrections can be accomplished.

Mr. Richmond stated it would be appropriate for the program oversight committee to report on their deliberations on the rule during public comment.

Dick Wilhelm Fenestration Manufacturers Association

Mr. Wilhelm stated there seemed to be confusion amongst the third party validators and the manufacturers he represent. He asked staff if a manufacturer is doing certification and he has a Florida Registered Professional Engineer on staff when they do the installation instructions and anchorage calculations may those be submitted for product approval or do they have to go outside and find another independent third party PE to validate their work or can they go back through the validation entity who would have to get a Florida Certified PE to validate before they would send it up the chain of command.

Mr. Madani responded by stating under the proposed changes the answer is yes. He explained a third independent party has to come in to do the validation, if the installation instructions are done by the manufacturer’s engineer.

Commissioner Carson stated the rule was reviewed one more time. He then referenced the OH projector screen. He explained language was added to Rule 9B-72.0802c. He also added Rule 9B-72.102(a) had the words testing laboratory from the second line stricken for clarity.

Mr. Madani stated the reason four was included was relative to continuing education. He stated the committee would like to continue debating that issue as there is some concern regarding logistics and implementation requiring continuing education for the validators. He explained keep the Commission informed regarding the subjects addressed as part of the workshops. He stated the committee would like to open the rule to discuss adding two categories, materials and structural components as discussed in number five.

Mr. Richmond then closed the public comment portion of the workshop. He stated at this point the recommendation would be to conduct another supplemental rule development workshop at the next meeting of the Commission and in addition open the definition section of the rule for discussion, comment and adding potentially the fabric storm panels.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval to proceed with supplemental workshop at the next meeting. Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-3.004, FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

Chairman Browdy stated Rule 9B-3.004 is the rule regarding the Commission’s organization and the Commission’s operations. He further stated at the December 2006 Commission Meeting an Ad Hoc committee of commissioners, the committee organization and process Ad Hoc committee met to review Committee organization and process issues including considering alternate members for TACs and workgroups. He stated the Ad Hoc developed a package of consensus recommendations regarding alternate members which the Commission unanimously adopted. He explained the workshop was the first step in the process to implement by rule the Commission’s policy on alternate members for workgroups and TACs. He stated the rule formalizes the Commission’s use of workgroups and provides non-Commission members of TACs and workgroups to appoint alternate members to participate in the vote in their absence. He reported the Commission unanimously adopted the detailed policy and requirements for having how this will be done at the December 2006 meeting.

Chairman Browdy then directed the Commission to Mr. Richmond who served as hearing officer.

Mr. Richmond called the hearing to order. He stated the language of the rule was published and appeared as a link from the agenda. He explained the coding did not translate and strike underline could not be viewed. He stated there were two paragraphs added to the rule which pertained to the alternate members, as well as additional language which adds workgroups to the list of groups that can be created by the chairman.

Mr. Richmond closed the rule development workshop for 9B-3.004 after no public comments were made.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.004. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-3.050, FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

Chairman Browdy stated Rule 9B-3.050 is the rule for statewide amendments to the Code. He further stated in 2006 the code amendment process review group delivered consensus recommendations to the committee regarding proposed limitations for annual interim amendments to the Florida Building Code. He then stated the committee received and unanimously adopted the recommendations at the December 2006 meeting. He explained the rule development is being conducted to implement the Commission’s policy for restricting annual amendments to Commission interpretations, emergency issues, updating reference standards, consistency with federal and state laws, rules and regulations and coordination with the Florida Fire Prevention Code.

Mr. Richmond called the hearing to order.

Larry Schneider, AIA

Mr. Schneider stated line item c included the language “to adopt new addenda and reference standards”. He asked for clarification if updates that occur on the Building Code or if this is just a standard.

Mr. Dixon offered clarification stating the intent was reference standards only and not criteria written directly into the Code.

Mr. Richmond closed the public comment portion of the workshop. He stated a motion for approval of the notice for rule adoption at May meeting would be needed if the Commission agreed.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to notice the rule for rule adoption for the Commission meeting in May 2007. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-7, FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

Chairman Browdy stated the rule development effort of Rule 9B-7 is being conducted in order to implement the Accessibility TAC recommendations to the Commission regarding updating the Accessibility Waiver application form to integrate the parking standards moved from the D.O.T. statutes to the Accessibility Code statutes into the Florida Accessibility Code for building construction. He further stated the Florida Accessibility Code is not amended under the same procedure as the rest of the Florida Building Code, which follows the processes acquired by Chapter 553.73 of the Florida Statutes. He explained the Accessibility Code is amended through the Accessibility Code Statute and then into the Accessibility Code Rule and by law, the Florida Building Code is then deemed amended. He stated, by law, the Commission can only amend the Accessibility Code to adopt new additions of the Florida ADA Accessibility guidelines or to integrate the accessibility requirements placed into Florida law.

Mr. Richmond called the hearing to order.

Mary Kathryn Smith stated she had spoken with Commissioner Gross the previous night at which time he requested her to convey the comments and recommendations of the TAC. She then stated the first action taken at the TAC meeting was to establish ground rules to ensure only the items previously noticed for consideration by the TAC and subsequently the Commission could be addressed at that time. She further stated the principal issue was to import the standards and language that was included previously in Chapter 316, but is now found in Chapter 553 regarding the mounting height for signage at accessible parking spaces. She stated there were other items, basically housekeeping: requesting all Accessibility Waiver applications be submitted in PDF format; placing in the application’s instruction sheet that people will continue to submit 8 ½ x 11 plans; under the general comments state add “additional equipment that applicant may wish to bring is their responsibility.”; under Section 7, which currently references only the Florida law as to what people would want to have waived, a minor correction which would state “and or the Law”; delete the language pertaining to curb ramps currently found in 11-4.8.3 because it is more appropriately found in 11-4.7.3.

Mr. Dixon asked Larry Schneider if there was any impact in submitting in PDF format if the applicant is the architect since the documents have to be signed and sealed.

Mr. Schneider responded he did not believe there was an impact because the applications do not have to be signed and sealed.

Mr. Dixon asked for clarification if they were public documents.

Mr. Schneider stated they were public documents, but the only time signed and sealed documents are required is for issuance of a permit.

Mr. Dixon stated the issue should be reviewed since the engineer law states for public purpose not permit and he thought the engineer and architect laws may read the same.

Mr. Schneider stated he wanted to be sure the drawings are submitted by 24 x 36 and 8 ½ x 11. He further stated the reason for the 8 ½ x 11 size is for the department’s scanning for the board packets.

Mr. Dixon stated his question was specific to the application, not the drawings submitted.

Mr. Schneider stated he understood the question, but wanted to offer clarification for the paper sizes.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification whose rule would take priority over the documents in terms of them being signed and sealed.

Mr. Dixon suggested the 481 Statute.

Commissioner Bassett offered clarification stating the engineers have a means to seal electronically so the PDF format can be used.

Mr. Schneider stated he believed during the last six months the Board of Architecture had taken that same position.

Mr. Richmond closed the rule development workshop for 9B-7after no public comments were made. He stated, given the comments made by the TAC, a motion would be necessary to either integrate the changes and notice the rule for adoption or if there is a concern regarding the sign and seal, a supplemental rule development workshop.

Commissioner Bassett stated in reviewing the rule, it appeared as though too much was stricken in the middle of the paragraph because the ADAG 4.3.0.7 just appears with no reference. He then stated he believed it should read “meeting the requirements of ADAG” or something to that effect.

Mr. Richmond stated this was a preliminary draft and changes will need to be integrated into the form; a preliminary draft created by staff for discussion purposes. He further stated the changes from the TAC would have to be included in the next draft, which does have to be published in Florida Administrative Weekly.

Commissioner Greiner asked if most of where it reads “must”, shouldn’t it read “shall.”

Mr. Richmond responded it depended if you were in the House or the Senate.

Mr. Blair stated the issue is to determine whether the changes will be integrated and proceed with rule adoption or request a motion to conduct a supplemental rule development workshop.

Commissioner Bassett moved approval of the changes proposed and to move forward with rule adoption, stating the sign and seal question does not have anything to do with the changes proposed. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-3.047, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE WIND-BORNE DEBRIS PROTECTION

Chairman Browdy stated in order to implement the legislative requirements

from the special session regarding eliminating windborne debris protection exceptions in the panhandle windborne debris region requirements those windborne debris requirements exceptions which were less stringent of the 2006 IBC and IRC by June 1 2007, the Commission voted unanimously at the last meeting to limit the scope of rule making for 9B-3.047 regarding implementing the legislative rule requirements to the following: revising the wind speed map to remove the panhandle exception to the windborne debris region; revising the definition of the windborne debris region to remove the panhandle exception; removing the interior pressure design option from the Code; and conducting a rule adoption hearing only after a rule development workshop. He further stated this rule will adopt the ASCE7 120mph and greater windborne debris regions in the panhandle. He explained the rule adoption hearing is the next step in adopting the windborne debris protection requirements by the July 1, 2007 date mandated by the Florida Legislature.

Mr. Richmond called the hearing to order.

Chairman Browdy stated this hearing was perfunctory, as it was a mandate from the legislature to accomplish this prior to July and integrated to be effective by the July 1 date.

Mr. Madani informed the Commission there were two general comments listed under the draft rule.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification from Mr. Richmond on the necessary motion.

Mr. Richmond stated there are two potential motions based on the comments received. He explained the first would be a motion to integrate the changes into the rule through notice of proposed changes, which would create a potential delay in the implementation of the rule which may or may not exceed the July 1^st date depending on the process utilized. He stated the second motion would be to proceed to rule adoption. He concluded by stating unless the Commission feels the comments received are of such a critical nature the rule cannot move forward without them, he would encourage them to move forward to rule adoption.

Chairman Browdy asked if the “Hawaii” thing could be considered a “Scribner’s” issue.

Mr. Richmond stated given the procedural posture of this rule, he did not believe anything should be extended to Srivener’s errors. He explained if it states Hawaii on it‘s very face then it does not relate to the state of Florida and the text does no harm, therefore there would be no reason to remove it.

Commissioner Bassett moved approval for rule adoption. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins then stated on the first page of 1609.1.4 under protection of openings it states “we have stricken the word exterior” which would mean it to read, in his opinion, every interior window in a building would have to be protected from windborne debris regardless of whether there is any wind. He asked if the word exterior should not be removed.

Mr. Madani responded the language is drafted to be consistent with the language that is currently in the 2006 International Codes. He stated this language is basically what was in those codes and staff did not attempt to add or take away from it.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if the International Codes didn’t differentiate between interior and exterior windows within a building.

Mr. Madani responded they did not.

Chairman Browdy called for a vote on the motion. Vote to approve the motion for rule adoption was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Greiner asked, based on Commissioner Wiggins’ question, in the future when asked if glazing means interior or exterior is the intent for exterior.

Chairman Browdy stated people would assume windows are on the outside of the house.

Commissioner Kim stated the International Codes specifically left out exterior pressure for clarity. He explained his understanding is since it is under the subject title protection of openings, they thought it clear enough that the openings protected in the envelope.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Mr. Richmond announced there would be four conference call meetings scheduled through the months of April. He stated these meetings allow the Commission to voice its’ opinions on pending legislation. He reported the calls are scheduled from 10:00am – 12:00pm for the following dates: April 9^th, April 16^th, April 23^rd, and April 30^th. He stated the phone number to call to participate in those conference calls would be posted on the FBC website. He further stated the public is welcome to call, but their participation would be limited to only monitoring the meetings due to logistical difficulties of allowing open public debate over the telephone. He then stated he had emailed the list of items for review prior to those conference calls.

Mr. Richmond noted there were no major issues to resolve at this meeting, but an update would certainly be warranted. He also noted the list of items only included those items that have been filed. He stated the largest bills include HB 483 pertaining to carbon monoxide to smoke detectors. He further stated the Mechanical TAC addressed that bill in the form of a code amendment proposed for the next code cycle. He stated the TAC has moved a product forward that will be before the Commission at the June meeting. He recommended going to the Legislature to seek construction to which the next addition of the Code will apply. He stated it is a simple deference for the FBC to provide standards. He further stated the current Bill spells everything out with particular standards within the Code relative to the placement of the detectors. He stated he believed that bill to consistent with the TAC recommendations. He continued by stating he believed this would be necessary because the bill does require retro fitting for existing buildings, because that is beyond the reach of the Code. He stated to new construction there should be general reference made either to the Code in the bill or within 553 to make an allowance of carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors are already covered, and then maintain the standards for new construction.

Commissioner Bassett stated he had an appointment the following day with Senator Ron Saunders, of Key West, who is one of the main proponents of the bill. He further stated he hoped to convey the Commission’s desires to him at that meeting.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification of the motion.

Mr. Richmond stated the motion would be to adopt the Commission’s position that in terms of construction to which the 2007-2008 edition of the Code will apply the general deference for requirement of carbon monoxide detectors be to the Code and the existing construction will be able to proceed as presented.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the motion for counsel’s recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Richmond then discussed HB 589. He stated the bill is in existence, but has not been heard. He noted the current requirement is very basic and he does not believe it is the intent for the final. He reported he had been in discussions with Mr. Dudley, who the Commission is familiar with. He stated his understanding they would seek to add to that bill a provision related to swimming pool grounding that arises from the most recent edition of the NEC, which was adopted into the Code. He further stated the Florida Pool & Spa Association has proceeded and obtained a non-binding opinion from the Building Officials Association and have also developed through engineers a proposal that is equivalent or alternative which they are carrying to local jurisdictions. He added some of those jurisdictions are more reluctant than others to accept an alternative to the National Electric Code, which is a generally accepted document. He stated it was his understanding this language does carry the Commission to what will be in the next edition of the National Electrical Code.

Jennifer Hatfield, Florida Swimming Pool Association

Ms. Hatfield stated Section 553.88 of Florida Statutes requires the Florida Building Commission to adopt the 2005 National Electrical Code, which became effective in December 2006. She then stated Section 680.26c of the National Electrical Code is requiring an echo potential bonding grid around the perimeter of the pool deck. She reported in the previous 2002 Code the metal parts of the pool (the shell) were always bonded, but not the deck. She stated the new section has caused confusion to the pool builders and the building officials not only in Florida, but across the country, regarding what is required of them to conform to the new requirement. She explained the Florida Pool Association had attempted to get clarification from the National Fire Protection Association, who issues the National Electrical Code, but had been consistently denied clarification. She further stated all the Fire Protection Association would do was to say the local jurisdictions would be referred to because it is their responsibility to clarify the content of the Code.

Ms. Hatfield then stated the Florida Swimming Pool Association then decided to work with the local jurisdiction toward an alternative method. She stated the association hired a group of electrical engineers from Florida who put together a packet which was given to Jim Richmond. She further state she believed the commissioners were to have received copies of the information in that packet via email. She explained the packet included guidelines and drawings for this single wire copper grid option around the perimeter of the pool, which they believe to be equivalent to what is currently in the 2005 Code and is much more clear relative to what the building official needs to inspect for as well as what the contractor needs to put in. She stated also in the packet was a copy of the 2008 proposed language of the National Electrical Code, which will provide for the single #8AWG bare solid copper wire around the perimeter of the pool. She continued by stating this packet was being presented to the local jurisdictions and copies of 90.4 of the National Electrical Code and Section 104 of the Florida Building Code, which allows for alternative methods and materials if the new alternative method is found to be equivalent to what is required in the Code. She noted there was other documentation from other engineers supporting the method as well as copies from local jurisdictions who have accepted this copper wire.

Ms. Hatfield continued by stating there has been much success in many areas of the state in accepting the single wire option, but other jurisdictions raised the question of liability. She stated this indicated the need to work this out legislatively which has led to the legislative amendment to Building Code bills this year that would state this section of the 2005 National Electrical Code would not go into effect until the new edition is adopted, but it would allow for the Florida Building Commission to adopt the single wire alternative. She concluded by stating the goal was to find something doable for the contractor and the building official that is still a safe alternative for the consumers, who have been very upset about the cost of the copper grid.

Chairman Browdy asked Ms. Hatfield if she had stated there was a proposed change to the 2008 NEC to allow this single copper wire function.

Ms. Hatfield answered yes.

Commissioner McCombs stated he had been aware of this since last December, but stated he was not aware of the recent status until the last two weeks, having received ten calls from building officials from all over the state asking what the Commission was doing regarding the issue. He further stated this was very confusing and gets more confusing whenever the 2008 codes state paved instead of unpaved. He then stated this was not the first time things like this have happened in the Code. He reported a lot of jurisdictions are accepting the alternative method of the copper wire going around the pool. He stated the liability issue is something that is always a possibility when someone proposes a different way of doing things. He then stated this is something that definitely needs to be addressed because it has gotten so bad now that whenever the concrete is poured around the pools instead of just letting the grid lay in the concrete, some jurisdictions are requiring a standoff because it is called for in the Code. He concluded by stating the situation has certainly been a mess since it became effective December 8, 2006.

Chairman Browdy asked Commissioner McCombs if he believed this legislative initiative would clarify things and put into record something that needs to be taken care of.

Commissioner McCombs responded yes.

Mr. Richmond stated the version he had on the overhead screen was not completely accurate with the most recent version of the legislative change. He stressed that Ms. Hatfield and Mr. Dudley have tried to craft something which avoids putting code into law, which has always been a Commission issue, and this ultimately defers to the discretion of the Commission identifying this single #8AWG bare solid copper wire buried to a minimum depth as an alternative for the Commission to consider or as one that it may adopt, not shall adopt, which allows discretion for Commission consideration. He then stating he believed some of the big policy issues and this may, in his opinion, fit the criteria for a glitch amendment in future years. He concluded by stating the Commission could either support or choose to agree to remain silent on.

Commissioner Greiner asked if this is indicating it be placed 18-24 inches inside the wall of the swimming pool as opposed to out where the deck is.

Ms. Hatfield answered it was placed on the outside. She stated it follows the 2008 proposed language. She asked if one of the engineers who wrote this could come forward to answer any questions.

Chairman Browdy stated the Commission’s role is to be informed about legislation that impacts the Florida Building Commission and to determine it its’ support is possible. He further stated, based on her testimony and statements from Commissioner McCombs, he didn’t believe there was any problem with the Commission trying to move forward and supporting a legislative initiative if it offers clarification to this situation.

Commissioner Greiner stated he is normally vehemently opposed to legislation with respect to the Code, but he believed in this case, it is a reasonable approach and he would support it.

Commissioner stated he believed the Commission should support this proposal because he believes it sends a good message to the legislature indicating this is the way it should be done if and it doesn’t dictate what the actual Code states. He then moved approval of the proposal. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins suggested rather than inserting exact code language into the statute, couldn’t reference be made to the NEC version and section of the Code. He stated the language is still not clear to him.

Chairman Browdy stated he believed Commissioner Bassett’s motion was right on point. He stated the Commission needs to support in concept the Florida Pool & Spa, although it does not need to be involved in crafting language for a legislative change to a code. He reiterated the Commission could support the initiative of the Florida Pool & Spa to clarify the Code without getting specific supporting the language.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he agreed with what has been said, but did not want to push the specific language which would make it more unclear.

Commissioner Greiner stated as long as it is clear the Commission can write whatever is going in there, he has no issue with it all.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission cannot adopt the language of the NEC because it will not take effect until May 25^th or thereabouts.

Ms. Hatfield offered clarification stating the reason there was confusion with the placing of the 18-24 inches inside is missing the word “from” which is what the amendment did indicate.

Chairman Browdy restated the motion to support the Florida Pool & Spa Association’s initiative to clear up the ambiguity that exists for alternative methods of compliance with this issue. He then called for a vote to approve the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Richmond stated House Bill 1177 exempts prefabricated columburia and mausoleums from the requirements of the Florida Building Commission and establishes some ventilation options for mausoleums and columburia He stated this issue and other issues the industry has with the Code were brought up during the TAC meetings. He further stated he was not sure of the outcome of the proposed amendments were, but he is currently trying to discuss this with an industry representative who was at the TAC meetings and had not had the opportunity to fully vent that. He then stated he would seek the opportunity to delay this until the conference call to allow him the opportunity to talk with them. He stated he believed the Commission’s pre-adopted position that things should not generally be exempted from the Code provides him some latitude to move forward. He the stated had wanted to reference this if it is such a limited occupancy building type the Commission has no objection to a general exemption he requested them to let him know now and he would allow the bill to move forward with no further comment.

Commissioner Kim stated the Structural TAC did consider a plethora of code changes presented to the TAC by this industry. He further stated overall the TAC did not have any issues except there were some code changes that some TAC members had concerns with, in regard to some of the larger, heavier type structures with regard to load bearing pressure leaving some technical issues at the TAC.

Commissioner Bassett stated the Mechanical TAC accepted all of the ventilation changes that were presented.

Commissioner Carson stated he believed all of the ones in the code administration were turned down.

Mr. Madani stated that was correct.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he thought the proponent withdrew them.

Mr. Dixon reminded the Commission this was an issue of prior legislation and the regulators of these crypts or mausoleums did have a request in the policy of the Commission that they remain in the Code and not be removed.

Chairman Browdy reminded the Commission it is being informed for informational purposes only.

Mr. Richmond stated often he does need positions to move forward, but on several of these it is just information only. He stated Senate Bill 1208 is the equivalent of House Bill 589 which has already been discussed. He then stated House Bill 1273 was actually subject to some discussion in the Accessibility TAC and pertains to the reservation of accessible parking spaces for those with specially-equipped cars. He noted the specific provision is where there are more than five accessible parking spaces, at least one needs to be reserved for vehicles equipped for offloading people with wheelchairs and ramps. He stated he believed the Accessibility TAC would recommend the Commission seek to oppose this. He further stated he personally believed parking standards and where particular people can park an issue beyond the Building Code, although this relates to a change in 553, and the Commission has enough fights on issues more closely related to its core responsibility. He offered his recommendation against the bill.

Chairman Browdy asked Mr. Richmond if he were looking for direction or a motion on the issue.

Mr. Richmond stated the issue could be considered during the Accessibility TAC report, if the chairman would like to move through the legislative update.

Chairman Browdy stated he would like to move forward.

Mr. Richmond continued with the report stating 1822 is the primary Senate version of carbon monoxide and smoke detectors which have already been discussed. He stated Senate Bill 1870 is a bill that has been created regarding banking and insurance, which delays implementation of internal pressure elimination as imposed by House Bill 1A. He reported this bill is on the floor of the Senate as a proposed committee bill in the House, although that status may have changed. He stated pursuant to the Commission action at the last meeting that effort has been supported. He then stated Senate Bill 2230 is reservation of the accessible parking spaces in the Senate. He continued stating Senate Bill 2314 pertains to local amendments of the Code that provide for personnel standards for Code officials. He stated there is a House Bill to that effect. He explained it is one of those issues that although it is in 553, it is more of an association of counties and league of cities type issue. He stated Senate Bill 2688 provides for an updated wind loss relativity study. He explained in 2002 the Commission supported a study by Pride and Research Associates that looked at the benefits in terms of reduced risks in some of the provisions of the Building Code. Mr. Richmond explained that bill is somewhat dated in terms of what the Code requires together with what the cost of things is, including insurance which has experienced rapid increases recently. He stated this would provide for an updated element of that, which would be something the Commission would be supportive of, with the funding for that in the bill currently is from MySafeFlorida Homes provision. He asked the Commission to review Senate Bill 2836 in preparation for the conference call as it contains primarily the Commissions’ recommendations from its report to the 2007 Legislature. He noted some changes to the private provider system in 553.791. He stated those have been worked through a process which involved the Building Association of Florida as well as Mr. Elswig and his representatives. He further stated to his knowledge the Building Officials Association is okay with all of the changes contained in that section and is primarily editorial tweaks. He then stated an additional item in that bill is building code education, which can be considered when the Education POC presents its report as it is a work in progress. He stated the commissioners should look for an email during the next week with some additional information pertaining to that and will be subject to discussion at the next telephone conference call. He stated Senate Bill 2856 is the equivalent exempting prefabricated columbaria and mausoleums from the requirements of the Code and establishes the ventilation options.

Mr. Richmond continued his report noting some additional items had come up. He reported on the progress of mitigation counsel created by House Bill 1A stating they are currently trying to reduce their work product to a piece of legislation that would have impact on the Building Code. He stated he did not know if that had been finalized yet, but noted there may be elements of that bill the Commission might support and move forward as recommendation of its own. He reported a similar situation has occurred in the House pertaining to Energy, with elements contained in 2836, which would seek to look at the base lines that were utilized for the Energy Code and update them to today’s cost and technology primarily done through F set. He stated the House Bill contains an additional element of trying to create an outreach program pertaining to energy efficient design. He reported in the internal review there is not available staff or the expertise to do this. He stated DEP does have the staff and expertise to do this and has relayed that to the House staff. He further stated that is actually being brought forth as a proposed committee bill and is being brought up this morning in house energy. He continued by stating mitigation and conservation are two of the big items this year and both have extensive implications on the Code and are a matter of general interest to the Commission and have been for years. He noted despite the relative unpopularity at the legislature it is something that can be utilized to our benefit and to our advantage for that purpose altogether being consistent with the policies that have been adopted in the past.

Mr. Richmond then asked anyone who did not receive the email last Saturday that he sent to send him an email at jim.richmond@dca.state.fl.us to ensure future updates and conference calls.

REPORT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND MOISTURE CONTROL IN THE FLORIDA ENVIRONMENT SYMPOSIUM

Mr. Dixon stated the outcome of the workshop indicated a need for a lot of education and training. He further stated there are problems with duct system design, air conditioning sizing, as well as the marginal capacity of the new high efficiency systems to remove latent moisture from the air. He explained the Florida Energy Code has addressed the moisture gain side of the problem throughout its history and has required a ceiling of different entry points, balanced air pressures in buildings, a number of sizing requirements for equipment of which the most important is a mandatory load sizing calculation by a standard method. He stated there are still problems occurring in the field in lack of implementation and enforcement of those criteria leading to a situation which may result in increased number of moisture problems in mold and mildew in buildings. He further stated the recommendation of that group was directed primarily to education, but it did also address the need to develop cost effective systems that can better remove moisture. He noted there is a parallel to be drawn as Florida has moved forward in its Energy Efficiency Standard as Mr. Richmond pointed out there is a lot of interest at the legislature now. He reported a new commission; the Energy Commission was appointed and established by law last year. He stated the importance as Florida moves further along toward more energy efficient buildings it needs to address both the moisture issue and the insulation and solar heat gain issues. Mr. Dixon further stated those things have to move in parallel or a situation will occur, as it has in the past, when Energy Codes were legitimately criticized as being the cause of certain indoor air quality issues. He stated the report that he sent the commissioners Friday synopsizes what the issue is. He offered the availability of the Energy committee members, the air conditioning industry and himself to try to explain the issue as it moves forward in working with the industry. He stated the manufacturers who were present have committed to work with the state in trying to increase the moisture control capability equipment that is out there. He then stated hopefully a more robust system will be created so movement forward can occur with even more energy efficient requirements for buildings in the future.

Commissioner Bassett asked if the Commission was going to develop future plans other than the very sketchy ones relative to item 21 in the workplan for the next meeting.

Mr. Dixon stated there will be proposals to flesh those out.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Accessibility TAC

Mary Kathryn Smith presented the report of the Accessibility TAC. (See Accessibility TAC Minutes March 27, 2007)

Chairman Browdy asked if there was a proposed date for the hotel/motel Charette.

Ms. Smith stated it is tentatively scheduled for November.

Commissioner Schulte moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Energy TAC

Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Energy Technical Advisory Committee. (See Energy TAC Minutes March 27, 2007)

Commissioner McCombs moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Fire TAC

Commissioner Goodloe presented the report of the Fire Technical Advisory Committee. (See Fire TAC Minutes March 27, 2007)

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Joint Fire TAC/Fire Code Advisory Council

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Joint Fire TAC/Fire Code Advisory Council. (See Joint Fire TAC/Fire Code Advisory Council Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007)

Commissioner Schulte moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Bahadori entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Structural TAC

Commissioner Kim presented the report of the Structural Technical Advisory Committee. (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007)

Commissioner Bahadori moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Education POC

Chairman Browdy presented the report of the Education Program Oversight Committee. (See Education POC Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007)

Chairman Browdy requested Commission action regarding the following courses which were approved administratively:

Advanced Code Training 2006 Amendments to the FBC, BCIS 229 provided by Contractor’s Exam School and accredited by BCICLLC.

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the course. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Advanced 2004 Building Structural 164.1

Advanced Code Mechanical Energy 224.0

Application of Chapters 3,5,6,7 & 9 of the FBC 223.0

Advance 2004 FBC with Updates 120

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the courses listed. Commissioner Bahadori entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Bahadori moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC. (See Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007)

Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommends the Commission authorize DCA staff to issue a RFP to solicit contractors for the Administration of the Prototype Building Program. He further stated staff would place the RFP on the web by April 2^nd and it will remain there until April 20^th. He continued by stating the proposals will be due by the May POC meeting to be reviewed by the POC at that time.

Chairman Browdy asked how long would that be in terms of the contract time.

Commissioner Carson stated he believed them to be in one year increments, but there is language that can extend those contracts for up to three years.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the POC request to have staff the RFP for the Administration of the Prototype Building Program. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommends staff issue an RFP to solicit contractors for the administration of the Product Approval Program. He further stated staff would place the RFP on the web by April 2^nd and it will remain there until April 20^th. He continued by stating the proposals will be due by the May POC meeting to be reviewed by the POC at that time.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the POC request to have staff the RFP for the administration of the Product Approval Program. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Schulte moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Special Occupancy POC

Commissioner Hamrick stated the Special Occupancy Program Oversight Committee met and requested action by the Chairman to fill the vacancy on the committee.

Chairman Browdy asked if there was a recommendation by the POC for that position.

Commissioner recommended the position be filled by someone from the agency of Children and Families.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Hamrick stated several months ago he had shown the Commission a publication called The Handbook for Public Education facilities. He stated the handbook has been updated to include the 2005/2006 supplements and unfortunately state agencies are still under restrictions on printing. He stated it would be available at the website of the Department of Education as a download.

Commissioner Wiggins stated in going through the Code modifications with the technical committees recently he did not see any local technical amendments in the state of Florida. He asked how that was handled or if there were any.

Mr. Dixon responded there will be and it will be taken up by the TACs at the May meeting.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Larry Schneider, AIA of Florida

Larry Schneider requested if it would be possible to have some tables set up in the back of the room for future meeting setups. He stated it would be appreciated by those who bring laptops and have been using them on other chairs or in their laps.

Lorraine Ross

Ms. Ross stated she had recently completed a new home and when an insurance company gave her a quote for her new home insurance, she was discouraged to find she barely received any credit for exceeding the Code, not just meeting it. She asked the Commission to provide some leadership regarding this issue and get very involved in the legislation that is being currently being considered. She further stated for the past five years the insurance industry has consistently come to the FBC with proposed code amendments and they have been successful in strengthening the Code. She then stated it would appear that any measures taken by individuals to meet the code or exceed it are not considered by that industry when it comes to terms of risk reduction. She continued by stating another issue she is concerned about is the criteria that has been developed for qualification for homeowners to get some benefit from MySafeFlorida home program. She stated she had received many questions via email asking what was going on with shingles relative to people upgrading their roofing materials. She reported she checked into it and found essentially no one can qualify for upgrading roof coverings the way the program is currently written. She reiterated her belief that the Commission, with its authority to develop and maintain the Florida Building Code has a seat at the table and she would like to see these programs being reviewed by the Commission, making sure there is some sort of connection, finally, between the Florida Building Code strength, the requirements contained within it, and have some real benefits for people down the road. Ms. Ross stated she knows Mr., Richmond is monitoring those insurance and mitigation bills that are in Tallahassee, but added she hopes in those upcoming conference calls the Commission is not silent but provides input to ensure the input on the Code connection is being heard and being taken seriously.

Chairman Browdy stated he believes what has been done is the Building Code has been strengthened over the years and significant risk reduction has been seen. He further stated at the same time there has been increased costs to pay that price to mitigate risks which increase premium dollars. He then stated not only have we decreased risks, premium dollars have increased at the same time and there has not been a legitimate quit pro quo regarding that. He stated the Commission will continue to try to make its voice heard relative to that issue.

Mr. Dixon stated his understanding is O.I.R. just passed rules that go into effect at the end of March that significantly increase the credits the insurance companies have to provide. He explained they were previously allowed to use two different methodologies for identifying credits. He stated they are moving to another methodology which has lost cause relativities built in. He explained the reductions that O.I.R. imposed in the credits based on the first lost cost relativity study are being removed so the credits will actually reflect what that study indicated they should be.

Commissioner Bassett stated he had heard of several insurance companies that will only issue a credit if the mitigation is installed by a contractor and that homeowner mitigation is not accepted even if an engineer were to write a letter about the installation. He further stated he believed homeowners should be allowed to do their own mitigation and still receive the available credit.

REVIEW COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS AND ISSUES FOR THE MAY 7, 8 & 9, 2007 COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the committee meeting assignments and issues for the May 2007 Commission meeting.

Commissioner Goodloe noted the Joint Fire TAC will not be meeting at the Embassy Suites. He stated the meeting will be held at Jimmie B. Keel Library.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if there is any consideration where possible that the Commission might complete its work in a one day format.

Mr. Dixon stated meetings have to be considered on a case by case basis. He explained there are sometimes so many committee meetings it is difficult to get them all scheduled in one day without causing committee members to have two meetings scheduled at the same time.

Chairman Browdy noted also there is difficulty involved with booking the rooms at the meeting locations so far in advance and not knowing exactly what will be needed relative to meetings at that time.

Mr. Dixon stated in the past when the Commission met for one day there were often committee meetings scheduled on Sundays and there was some opposition to that schedule.

SUMMARY REVIEW OF MEETING WORK PRODUCTS

Mr. Blair conducted an overview summarizing the meeting work products in the order according to the meeting agenda.

ADJOURN

Chairman Browdy adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 10:42 a.m.