FLORIDA
BUILDING COMMISSION
BUILDING (STRUCTURAL)TECHNICAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY,
JUNE 10, 2015
10:00 A.M. – 11:39 A.M.
|
TAC/POC MEMBERS AND
OBJECTIVES |
|
|
STRUCTURAL TAC MEMBERS PRESENT: James Schock;
Chair, CW Macomber, Steve Strawn, Craig Parrino, Daniel L. Lavrich,
Do Y. Kim, Jaime Gascon, Warner Chang, David
Compton, Cris Fardelmann, Dick Wilhelm attend for Steve Strawn
during final minutes of the meeting |
|
|
· Objectives · To consider, discuss and
provide recommendations on one declaratory statement. |
|
|
MEETING
AGENDA |
|
|
OBJECTIVE |
REVIEW OF OBJECTIVES
WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: Description of issue, discussion by TAC, public
comment, TAC action |
|
10:00 A.M. 1) |
Welcome
and Opening, Roll Call Reviewed
and Approved of June 10, 2015 Meeting Agenda |
|
2) |
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: No, Section 3109.1.1(1) is
specific in stating that all habitable structures which extend wholly or
partially seaward of the CCCL or 50feet setback line are applicable to
section 3109. 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: No, Section 3109.1.1(1) is specific in stating that all
habitable structures which extend wholly or partially seaward of the CCCL or
50feet setback line are applicable to section 3109. 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: Section 3109.4.2 does not apply to slabs because
that section applies to walls, for slabs they must be designed in accordance
with section 3109.5. If the slabs are designed to 3109.5 they do not have to
be frangible they can be structural. 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. |
|
3) |
Comments from TAC and public –
Staff mentioned that if no Declaratory statements were to come in between now
and the October meetings there would be no further summer Structural TAC
meetings. Also the next meetings in
October for the TAC would be on-site meetings to discuss code modifications. |
|
4) |
Adjourned at 11:39 |
STAFF CONTACTS: Joe Bigelow,
Planning Analyst joe.bigelow@myfloridalicense.com (850) 717-1829
or Mo Madani, Manager 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, Suite 90, 1940 N. Monroe, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399 or call 850-487-1824.