Second Hearing Legal Report October 13, 2009

First Hearing heard August 11, 2009

 

DCA09-DEC-129 by Rodger England of Bermuda Roof Co., Inc.

DCA09-DEC-253 by C.S. Breslauer of Bermuda Roof Co, Inc.

 

Note: Dec. 253 is an amendment to Dec. 129.

 

Question #1:  Can we use SSTD-11-99 testing results for hips and ridges as a basis for obtaining approval for the use of the mortar adhesive system in the HVHZ?

 

Answer:  No.  The product in question falls outside the scope of Rule 9B-72 with regard to hip and ridge as applied to the HVHZ.

 

Question #2: Should a hip and ridge system with demonstrated performance that is equal or superior to the current system in use in the HVHZ be allowed?

 

Answer:  Yes.  Subject to approval of the local authority have jurisdiction.

 

Question #3:  Should the Commission issue a declarative statement supporting the use of a new technology such as the mortar adhesive hip and ridge tile system in all areas of the state based on the fact that it exceeds the state minimum Building Code requirements?

 

Answer:  No. The Commission has no authority to approve alternative to a prescriptive requirement of the Code. 

 

DCA09-DEC-214 by Thomas E. Smith of General Home Development Corporation of Pinellas (the request is outside the scope of the scope of the Dec. statement process and is recommended for dismissal.  The subject of the Dec. is a request for waiving the code requirements for fire sprinkler installation in group R occupancies).

 

DCA09-DEC-254 by Mike Harris of Sea Shutters Inc.

 

Question #:       Can a non-porous impact protective system in Wind Zone 1, 2 or 3 which is not on an essential facility and was tested independently of fenestration assembly be installed in a manner which would allow glazing contact resulting in breakage?

 

Answer:            Yes.  In accordance with the “Conclusions of Law” of DCA08-DEC-002 (see Item 2 above) and based on current standards, the intent of the Code is to prevent internal pressurization, and breakage is permissible.

 

Question #2:     Can a non-porous impact protective system in Wind Zone 1, 2 or 3 which are not on an essential facility and were tested independently of fenestration assembly be installed over an opening or window regardless of its design pressure rating?

 

Answer:            Application/ installation of a non-porous impact protective system must be in accordance with the limitations of use of the product as demonstrated using the applicable testing standard referenced in the FBC. 

 

Question #3:     Can a porous impact protective system in any Wind Zone and was tested independently of the fenestration assembly be installed in a manner which would allow glazing contact resulting in breakage?

 

Answer:            No.  Glazing breakage not allowed.

 

Question #4:     Can a porous impact protective system in any Wind Zone and was tested independently of the fenestration assemble be installed over opening of window regardless of its design pressure rating?

 

Answer:            Application/installation of a porous impact protective system must be in accordance with the limitations of use of the product as demonstrated using the applicable testing standard referenced in the FBC.

 

 

DCA09-DEC-259 by Robert S. Fine Counsel for Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC.

 

Question:        Does the installation of lightweight material (such as vinyl mesh) murals on the exterior of existing buildings require a building permit as might otherwise be required by Section 105.1 of the FBC (2004 and 2007 editions)?”

 

Answer:          Yes.  According to Section 403 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building and Section 3107 of the Florida Building Code, Building the level of work described falls within the scope of the Florida Building Code “regulated by the Code” and for that a building permit would be required.

 

Note: Petitioner requested that the petition be referred back to the TAC so that more info. can be provided to clarify specific applications for the project in question and to allow the Petitioner the opportunity to attend the TAC meeting.

 

 

DCA09-DEC-260 by Joseph Scofield of Advanced Manufacturing & Power System, Inc.

 

Question One: Is a generator enclosure a building as defined in the Florida Building Code, whether or not it is intended to be occupied?

 

Answer: Yes, according to the definition of the term “Building” (see Section 202 above), any structure used for sheltering any use is considered a “building”. 

 

Question Two: Does the structure fall within the purview of the Florida Building Code?

 

Answer: Yes, section 101.2 of the Florida Building Code states in part, that it is applicable to the construction of every building or structure.

 

 

DCA09-DEC- 257 by Mitch Thomas  

Question One:            Does the Florida Building Code pertain to the installation of low voltage electrical systems (phone/ data/ security/ Closed Circuit TV/ fire/ security alarm systems/ page & music-speaker systems / fiber optics)?

 

Answer:          Yes, section 101.4.1 of the Florida Building Code references chapter 27 of the FBC.  Chapter 27 establishes NFPA-70 (the NEC) as the applicable code. Additionally, the NEC contains requirements for such electrical wiring installations.

 

Question Two:            Is a permit required for installation of low voltage electrical systems (phone/ data/ security/ Closed Circuit TV/ fire/ security alarm systems/ page & music-speaker systems / fiber optics)?

 

Answer:          Yes, section 105.1 of the Florida Building Code mandates in part, that a permit be obtained prior to the  commencement of any electrical installation which is regulated by the code, unless the authority having jurisdiction has  promulgated rules granting certain exemptions form the code for single family dwellings in accordance with section 102.2.5 of the FBC, Building

 

 

 

DCA09-DEC-263 by Steven Clisset of Windstrips LLC

 

Question:  Does the Windstrips product fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72 under the category “roofing” and subcategory “products introduced as a result of new technology”?

Answer:  No.  The porduct in question falls out side the scope of Rule 9B-72.  However, as per Section 104.2.8, approval of this product is within the scope of local authority having jurisdication     

 

 

 

Section 553.73(10)(d), F.S., Review of FBC/FFPC Local Interpretation Conflict-

Requested by Bill R. Moore of Waldrop Group Regarding Bonita Springs Project

SFM Case No: 10416309-FM

 

Question #1: Can the local authority having jurisdiction waive code safety requirements that are specifically provided by Code? FFPC NFPA 101 4.6.1 thru 4.6.1.3. 

 

Answer:  No.  The authority having jurisdiction can not waive the code requirements.

 

Question #2:  From a review of Exhibit A, does the single stair (means of egress) with two exit doors comply with code section FFPC NFPA 101 38.2.4.1?

 

Question:  No.