First Hearing – October 13, 2009 – Legal Report

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

Question 1: Does the installation of lightweight material (such as vinyl mesh) murals on the exterior of existing buildings, where the material does not encroach the public right-of-way, require a building permit as might otherwise be required by under 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.

Question 2: If the answer to question (1) above is in the affirmative, then, on an

existing building which had a mural as described in question (1) above installed prior to the original effective date of the Florida Building Code (i.e. the 2001 edition), would the lowering and then re-hanging the mural material to the existing fasteners periodically for maintenance purposes (or, for example, during hurricane warning through the passing of the storm periods) constitute a repair or an alteration under FBC Existing Building Volume (2007 edition) (FBC-EB)?

Answer: The level of work in question is specific to an existing installation

which falls outside the scope of the Declaratory Statement process.

The Declaratory Statement process is limited in scope to future projects.

Question 3: Regarding the scenarios set forth in questions (1) and (2) above, would the vinyl murals described in questions (2) and (3) above be considered

“structural elements” for the purpose of FBC –EB?

Answer: Yes. The product in question will impose additional dead load (gravity

load due to the weight of all materials) which has to be supported by the existing building and transferred to the structural members of the existing building

DCA09-DEC-309 by Alan Plante of Orange County Division of Building Safety (The Petitioner requested that the Dec. be Deferred to the December Commission meeting)

DCA09-DEC-269 by Thomas Ford, RA of Bhamani, Ford & Associates, Inc

Question 1: Is the voltage drop of 2 percent as stated in 13-413.1.ABC.1.1 intended as such or is it a scrivener’s error?

Answer: Yes, Section 13-413.AB.1.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building, intended to limit the voltage drop for feeders and customer-owned service conductors to 2 percent at design load. It is not a scrivener’s error.

Question 2: Why is the FBC so restrictive for the feeder conductor voltage drop at 2 percent and why is it not in agreement with the NEC?

Answer: According to Section 102.4 of the Florida Building Code, Building, specific energy conservation requirements in the code take precedence over the informational language in the National Electric Code. There is no conflict between the two.