1. DCA08-DEC-194 by
Dan Arlington, St. Johns County Building Department –Addendum Submitted
DCA08-DEC-194 by Dan Arlington, Plans Examiner, St. Johns County Building Department
Question 1: The draft 2007 FBC, Section 1609.4.3 Exposure C requires a 20% increase in roof sheathing uplift and roof to wall uplift loads, in certain wind exposures.
Is it the intent of 1609.4.3 to increase the entire continuous uplift path by 20%?
Answer: Yes. In order to provide for a continuous load path transfer to the foundation as required by Section 1604.9 of the 2007 FBC, building, the 20% increase in roof sheathing uplift and roof-to-wall uplift loads must apply to the entire load uplift path.
Question 2: If “Yes” to question 1, is it the intent to increase the load capacity of roof trusses by 20%?
Answer: Yes. The uplift load capacity of roof trusses must be increased by 20% so that a complete load path capable of transferring loads to the foundation is provided.
{NO ACTION TAKEN - Deferred back to the TAC for more
discussion}
2. DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire
Marshall/Building Official, City of
Question 1: Does the rule apply only to new construction of a new building, or does it also apply to additions or alterations as defined in the FEBC?
Answer: The rule applies to all buildings for which a
permit for new construction is issued.
In this case, it would apply to construction of new buildings, additions
and level 3 but not level 1 or 2 alterations as defined in the
Question 2: If the rule applies to additions, does an addition require the complete existing structure to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)
For example: If an attached garage or a screen enclosure is added to an existing home, are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?
Answer: No, unless the addition meets the requirements for the Rule 9B-3.0472.
Question 3. If the rule applies to all alterations, does it require the complete existing structure to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and battery back up)
Example #1: If a new gas furnace is installed in an existing home, whereas it was electric before, are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?
Example #2: If any type of permit is issued on the existing structure are CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing structure?
Answer: No, it does not apply to all alterations, however it does apply to level 3 alterations.
Question 4. If the answer is yes to the questions 2 or 3 above, must hardwired CO detectors be installed with a battery backup?
Answer: No, if the addition requires a CO detector in the existing building it may be battery powered.
Question 5. Does the rule apply to repairs, as defined by the FEBC?
Answer: NO.
Question 6. Does the rule apply to a change in occupancy, as defined by the FEBC?
Answer: YES, if the change of occupancy meets the requirements or intent of Rule 9B-3.0472.
{NO ACTION TAKEN – Postponed until next meeting so that legal
can clarify whether it meets the Declaratory statement Criteria}
3. DCA08-DEC-289 by Glen Lathers, Hillsborough
County Public Schools
Question One: Can a four hour fire wall be installed for building separation to reduce the building size to less than 20,000 square feet therefore not requiring the building to be fully sprinklered if approved by the AHJ”
Answer: Yes, If the sections of the building separated by a fire wall in accordance with applicable sections in chapter 7 are less than 20,000 square feet, sprinklers are not required.
Question Two: If the answer to the above is yes, would the four hour fire wall be required to have a parapet wall and would any penetrations be allowed?
Answer:
An answer is not possible because the question is overbroad. However, The code
requirements in sections 705.6 and 705.8 would apply as interpreted by the
Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)
Legal advised to not
address the question after stating too broad.
4. DCA08-DEC-329 by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA Inc.
- Withdrawn
5. DCA08-DEC-330 by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA Inc.
- Withdrawn
6. DCA08-DEC-331 by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA Inc.
Question: In the event of future re-roofing projects on
a 4/12 slope roof, is one layer of code approved felt acceptable?
Answer: Yes, as per 1507.2.8 roof slopes of
four units vertical in 12 units horizontal (33-percent slope) or greater,
underlayment shall be one layer. <emphasis added>
7.
DCA08-DEC-337 by Roger Sanders, Nova Engineering and Environmental, LLC
Question: Does the statute
limit private provider services to only those inspections required under the
requirements of a general building permit for an entire building or can
services be provided for inspections required for specialty permits requiring
only a final inspection? In other words,
can private provider services be performed for an event such as an air
conditioner change-out? Can services be
provided for inspections required for specialty permits requiring only a final
inspection?
Answer : According to s. 553.791,
Florida Statutes, the law does not limit private provider services for
inspections to only a general building permit for an entire building. The private provider services may include
inspections required for alterations (i.e. an air-conditioner change-out) to
any structure for which permitting by a local
enforcement agency is required a stand-alone
permit is issued.
8.
DCA08-DEC-339 submitted by Jose Sanchez, Fenestration Testing
Laboratory, Inc. Amendment
QUESTION:
Under the circumstance described above, is another entity that performs
validations permissible under Rule 9B-72?
The
committee requested the presence of the petitioner to present more information
at the next meeting