Florida Building Commission

SPECIAL OCCUPANCY

Technical Advisory Committee

Meeting

MINUTES

June 9, 2015 at 2:30 P.M.

Meeting was held via teleconference/webinar:

Webinar: Please join this meeting. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/669660613

1 (877) 309-2070 Access Code: 669660613 Audio PIN: 669660613

public point of access: Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Northwood Centre, Suite 90, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399

(850) 487-1824

TAC Objectives

SPECIAL OCCUPANCY TAC Members Present: Chairman; Darrell Phillips, Hubert Baxter, Gene Chalecki, Ken Cureton, Frank Frail, Charles Frank, Bob Vincent,.

Members Not Present: James Ginas, Mark Boutin, Wayne Young

Staff Present: Mo Madani, Marlita Peters, Jim Hammers, Norman Bellamy, Robert Benbow, Nick Duval, April Hammonds

Guests on teleconference:

Objective – To consider, discuss and provide recommendations for consideration by the Commission on the following request for Declaratory Statement.

*Meeting Minutes*
*Objective*	*Review of objectives will include the following:* Description of issue, discussion by TAC, public comment, TAC action.
1)	Welcome and Opening Remarks. Meeting opened at 2:31pm.
2)	Roll Call: Roll Call was taken and a quorum was present.
3)	Review and Approval of Meeting Agenda: Bob Vincent made a motion to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Frank Frail. Unanimous vote of approval.
4)	Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2014: Motion was made by Charlie Frank, Second by Bob Vincent to accept the previous minutes of December 2, 2014. Unanimous vote of approval.
5)	Review and make recommendation to the Commission regarding: DS2015-055, petitioned by Belmar Development Associates, LLC represented by Attorney, Robert S. Fine. Presenter, Robert S. Fine, on behalf of Belmar Development Associates, LLC provided an overview of the questions posed by the request for declaratory statement and included the proposed answer to the questions. Staff Analysis was provided by Mo Madani, who agreed with the conclusions as stated by the petitioner. TAC Action: Question 1: May Petitioner (and the Building Official) rely on past consistent interpretations by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the DEP’s predecessor agency, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), of identical regulatory language that is now set forth in Section 3109 to determine whether the Paramount is allowed to have intermediate structural slabs below the wave crest elevation? If yes, do the past consistent interpretations of DEP and DNR allow intermediate structural slabs below the wave crest elevation? Answer 1: Yes. As the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission") held in Declaratory Statement DCA07-DEC-179, "[t]he Petitioner is entitled to rely on past consistent interpretations of the DEP and DNR to the extent that the historical application of the regulation is consistent with the current context of the FBC." The provisions of Section 3109 of the FBC that are germane to the issues and questions set forth in the Petition are for all practical purposes identical to the corresponding provisions of Rule 62B-33.007, F.A.C. (2001 and 2004). As such, the contexts are consistent. Petitioner has provided evidence of consistent practice of the DEP and DNR in connection with allowing the presence of intermediate structural slabs located below the wave crest elevation in a manner comparable to how such slabs are located in the Paramount project, thereby demonstrating that the intermediate structural slab location is consistent with the historical application of DEP's (and DNR's) regulation. Question 2: Declaratory Statement DCA07-DEC-179 provides, for example, that a dining area located seaward of the CCCL is allowed at elevations in between base flood elevation and the elevation of the lowest horizontal structural member but the associated kitchen must either be above the lowest horizontal structural member or be located landward of the CCCL. Does this mean that only portions of the structure that are located seaward of the CCCL, but not the remaining portions of the structure landward of the CCCL, must comply with Section 3109 of the FBC? Answer 2: The areas of a structure located seaward of the CCCL are subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 3109 and those areas of the structure that are landward of the CCCL are not subject to Section 31 09's requirements. Question 3: When any portion of the project structure falls seaward of the CCCL, does Section 3109.1.1 require that the entire structure comply with the requirements of Section 3109? Answer 3: The areas of a structure located seaward of the CCCL are subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 3109 and that areas of the structure that are landward of the CCCL are not subject to Section 31 09's requirements. Question 4: For any major structure that falls within Exception 4 of Section 3109.4.2, are the slabs that are constructed below the level of the wave crest elevation required to be frangible, or may they be of more permanent construction? Answer 4: Walls and partitions that are constructed below the level of the wave crest elevation are required to be frangible as mandated by Section 3109 .4.2 (see Exception 9). Structural slabs that are constructed below the wave crest elevation are not required by Section 3109.4.2 to be frangible or break- away. Section 3109.4.2 is a restatement of the Rule 62B-33.007(4)(f) of the DEP regulations. As demonstrated by the examples of permits issued by DEP that allowed for the presence of structural slabs below the wave crest elevation provided with the Petition, DEP's interpretations of its regulation allowed for the presence of such structural slabs. This interpretation is consistent with the language of Section 3 109.4.2 and Rule 62B-33.007 which expressly either prohibit, or significantly limit, built elements with significant vertical dimension running parallel to the shoreline that would impede the flow of waves and dynamic storm surge. On the other hand, a slab, by its dimensional nature, would not impede or alter the flow of waves and storm surge significantly. Question 5: For the purposes of determining the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 3109.4.2, is the Paramount a low-rise building as that term is used in Exception 4? Answer 5: Because the mean roof height at Paramount does not fall within the parameters contained in the definition of low-rise building, Paramount is not a low-rise building as that term is used in Exception 4 to Section 3109 .4.2. There were no questions from the TAC or public comments provided. Motion was provided by Gene Chalecki, seconded by Frank Frail, to accept the staff analysis as provided. Unanimous vote of approval.
6)	Other Commission business None submitted.
7)	Public Comment None provided.
8)	Member Comment None provided.
9)	Final Roll Call: Final roll call was taken with a quorum present.
10)	Stand Adjourned: 2:56 pm

Staff Contacts: Marlita Peters, Marlita.peters@myfloridalicense.com, (850) 717-1831; Mo Madani, mo.madani@myfloridalicense.com

Note: This document is available to any person requiring materials in alternate format upon request. Contact the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Office of Codes and Standards, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 90, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0772 or call 850-487-1824.