WELCOME
Chairman
Rodriguez welcomed the Commission and gallery to the October 2006 plenary
session of the Florida Building Commission.
He announced the passing of
Arnold Valesquez, a member of the Product Approval Administration team
and asked Mr. Valesquez’ partner, Ted Berman, to extend the Commission’s condolences
to Mr. Valesquez’ family.
REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA
Mr.
Blair conducted a review of the meeting agenda as presented in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Wiggins moved approval of the meeting agenda as amended. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
REVIEW AND APPROVE OCTOBER 11, 2006
MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORTS
Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and
facilitator’s reports from the October 2006 Commission meeting.
Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the October
Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner
D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
CONSIDER
ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS
Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Neil
Mellick for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.
Mr. Mellick stated there was nothing consent agenda for
this meeting.
He further stated the 4th
applicant; St. James Episcopal Church had withdrawn their request.
My Little Angels Day Care
Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver
as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Browdy moved approval of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Congo River
Golf Course
Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver
as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the Council’s
recommendation. Commissioner Bassett
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
HCH Company
Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver
as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the Council’s
recommendation. Commissioner Bassett
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Cobb Theatre
Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver
as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the Council’s
recommendation. Commissioner Bassett
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
South
Point Park
Mr. Mellick presented the petitioner’s request for waiver
as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the Council’s
recommendation. Commissioner Gross
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Mr. Mellick then stated the Council had unanimously
recommended a motion to amend an action taken on a previous petition. He further stated a motion was recommended to
table any action until review at the February 2007 meeting.
Mr. Richmond stated the recommendation concerned a
petition previously reviewed by the Commission during the last meeting. He continued stating there were minimal
adjustments to be completed before final order.
He confirmed a motion had been made and recommended to the Council that
the Commission make the same motion and table it until the February meeting,
when it should be referred specifically back to the Council for recommendation
on the amendment sought.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the Council’s
recommendation. Commissioner Bassett
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
CONSIDER
APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL
Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Commissioner
Carson for presentation of entity approvals.
Commissioner Carson presented in the form of a motion the
POC recommendations for entity approvals as follows:
CER 3718 CSA International – Product Certification
Agency
Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
QUA 5922 R.I. Ogawa & Associates, Inc. – Quality Assurance Entity
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
TST 3782 American Test Lab of South Florida, Inc. –
Testing Laboratory
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
TST
1685 Construction Consulting Laboratory International –Testing Laboratory
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
TST
6049 Exterior Research and Design, LLC dba Trinity/ERD South Carolina – Testing
Laboratory
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
TST 5992 Nutting Engineers of South Florida, Inc. –
Testing Laboratory
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
TST 3666 SGS US Testing Co – Rancho – Testing Laboratory
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
VAL
6050 Exterior Research and Design, LLC dba Trinity/ERD – Validation Entity
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Mr. Blair then presented the products for approval as
they appeared in the product approval matrix provided to each
Commissioner. Recommended approvals were
presented in consent agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals, and
denials being considered individually. (See Florida Building Commission Product Approval Applications)
Certification
Method
Recommended for Approval
Product #’s: 107-R2; 197-R2; 520-R2; 599-R3; 615-R2;
644-R2; 1037-R2; 1046-R2; 1080-R2;
1579-R2; 2047-R2; 2386-R2;
2947-R2; 3077-R1; 3663-R2; 5167-R1; 5177-R1; 5185-R1, 5524-R1; 5733;
6185-R1; 6705; 6867; 6891; 7026; 7175;
7392; 7427; 7452; 7491; 7497; 7498; 7503; 7595; 7598; 7616; 7654; 7655; 7666;
7668; 7669; 7670; 7672; 7673; 7674; 7680; 7681; 7682; 7683; 7687; 7693; 7696;
7698; 7699; 7702; 7709; 7710; 7711; 7712; 7713; 7714; 7716; 7717; 7718; 7723;
7729; 7743; 7752; 7753; 7766; 7768; 7775; 7789; 7798; 7805; 7812; 7820; 7823;
7832; 7833; 7834; 7836; 7837; 7839; 7844; 7851; 7852; 7853; 7855; 7857; 7858;
7860; 7861; 7863; 7864; 7872; 7879; 7880; 7881; 7882; 7883; 7884; 7885; 7889;
7892; 7893; 7897; 7900; 7901; 7902; 7904; 7905; 7906; 7907; 7908; 7909; 7910;
7911; 7914; 7915; 7918; 7919; 7920; 7921; 7923; 7924; 7927; 7928; 7929;
7930; 7931; 7932; 7934; 7937; 7938; 7939; 7943; 7945; 7947; 7948; 7950; 7951;
7952; 7953; 7954; 7955; 7956; 7957; 7958; 7959; 7961; 7962.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the consent
agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a
second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Recommended for Conditional Approval
239-R6; 242-R4; 251-R5; 253-R4 PGT Industries
Mr.
Blair stated the products were recommended for conditional approval in
accordance with recommendations from Structural TAC; Miami Dade to verify
anchoring requirements.
Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Tagliarini
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7140 Atlantic Windows and Doors, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the
design pressure is incorrect and should be 35 psf.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
7660 Clay Tile Ventures, Inc. dba Redland Clay Tile
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating TAS
118 and 120 need to be removed because there is a single product.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval the POC recommendation.
Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
7661 Clay Tile Ventures, Inc.dba Redland Clay Tile
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval because there
is a single product and extra product lines needed to be removed.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval the POC recommendation.
Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
7708 The Airolite Company, LLC
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating
information on “Limits of Use Other” should be removed and indicate load and
size ratings in accordance with UL ZGXJ.J.R25376; and upload on installation Instructions file
ZGXJ.R25376.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval. Commissioner
McCombs entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
7850 Masonite International
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating
Certification is for 8’ door, application is for 6’ door; petitioner needed
to verify specimens are tested per
TAS202; and correlate installation documents with products.
Commissioner
moved approval the POC recommendation. Commissioner Browdy entered a second to
the motion. Vote to approve the motion
was unanimous. Motion carried.
7871; 7873 USA Shutter Company LLC
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the
Engineer for the Manufacturer requested conditional approval in order to update fasteners on the application, and
to remove comparative analysis.
Commissioner
McCombs moved approval the POC recommendation.
Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
7949 JELD-WEN
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for
Product 7949.1, the maximum size should be 37 3/8” (See 419-H-874.01); and for
Product 7949.5, Impact Resistance is “Yes”, therefore add ASTM E 1886/1996-05
Standard to Standard list (as per 419-H875.02).
Commissioner
Carson moved approval. Commissioner
Bassett entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
7963 JELD-WEN
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating NOA
on description is not NOA certified.
Commissioner Carson moved approval the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Gross
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Incomplete Applications
Products
#’s: 5583-R1; 6571; 6649; 7439; 7641; 7684; 7685; 7686; 7776; 7944.
Evaluation by
Architect or Engineer
Recommended for Approval
Product #’s: 920-R2; 4517-R2; 4590-R2; 4617-R2; 4789-R1;
4800-RS; 48900-R2; 5213-R1; 5611-R3; 5818-R1; 5826-R1; 6156-R1; 6218-R3; 6644;
6859-R1; 7279-R1;7288-R1; 7320-R1; 7442-R1; 7445; 7458; 7531; 7536; 7589; 7630;
7636; 7639; 7640; 7649; 7652; 7653; 7663; 7667; 7675; 7676; 7690; 7691; 7695;
7728; 7730; 7731; 7734; 7742; 7745; 7749; 7750; 7755; 7758; 7763; 7765; 7769;
7771; 7787; 7795; 7796; 7806; 7808; 7809; 7811; 7813; 7822; 7824; 7830; 7831;
7835; 7840; 7841; 7854; 7859; 7866; 7868; 7870; 7874; 7876; 7878; 7886; 7887;
7888; 7903; 7912; 7913; 7916; 7925; 7941; 7960; 7964; 7965; 7966.
Commissioner Kim requested product #’s 5213-R1; 5214-R2;
5818-R1 be pulled from the consent agenda.
He stated he needed to abstain from voting on those items.
Carson
moved approval of the consent agenda as amended. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
5213-R1
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Browdy
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried. (Commissioner Kim abstained.)
5214-R2
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Browdy entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried. (Commissioner Kim abstained.)
5818-R1
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Browdy
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried. (Commissioner Kim abstained.)
Other
Jimmy Buckner, Seabuck, Representing Manufacturers
Mr. Buckner offered comment pertaining to two specific
products stating the manufacturers appear to be on the verge of being penalized
until the February meeting. He continued
stating both of the products were uploaded on November 13th and
validated on November 17thprior to the deadline. He stated hard copies had been sent by FedEx
to Arnold and Associates on November 14th. He further stated there had been some type of
computer error which is why the products did not get to Arnold and
Associates. Mr. Buckner explained he
believed the manufacturer had complied with all the conditions on a timely
basis. He requested the Commission
consider the products.
Mr. Blair asked Mr. Buckner for clarification concerning
the products for which he was seeking approval.
Mr. Buckner stated the product numbers were 7807 and
7814.
Commissioner Carson interjected stating the issue was
discussed briefly during the POC meeting.
He explained if there was no risk to the Commission it may behoove the
Commission to move ahead with action for the products. He directed the Commission to Mr. Richmond
for legal recommendation.
Mr. Richmond advised the Commission not to move on the
products at this time as they were not on the agenda; the products were not
properly submitted before the Commission to be considered.
Commissioner Kim interjected he had validated five
products on the 17th. He
explained three of those products made it through the process but two did
not. He stated he did not follow up to
see why the two items did not go through.
He further stated Arnold
and Associates had reviewed them and recommended them for approval.
Mr. Berman offered additional comment stating during the
meeting of the POC the members were asked if they had reviewed the product and
he had not. He further stated he
received an email indicating the products had been reviewed by staff and the
recommendation was for approval.
Mr. Richmond explained especially since a Commissioner
was involved, there would be heightened scrutiny. He reiterated the Commission should not
deviate from standard practice; if the products are not on the agenda they are
not properly before the Commission for consideration.
Mr. Blair offered clarification the Commission has heard
from the Committee and from Legal Counsel.
He stated it was up to the Commission to decide if it wants to consider
the products.
Commissioner Vann asked what would be the repercussions
if the Commission chose to move against legal recommendation.
Mr. Richmond responded stating the item could be subject
to challenge; Commissioner Kim could be subject to some action.
Commissioner Greiner offered comment expressing
discomfort with the issue of setting precedence.
Mr. Blair stated since there was no motion, the
Commission would move forward to the next item.
Recommended for Conditional Approval
7770 – Coastal Shutter Systems International, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the petitioner needed to submit a hardcopy of the evaluation report signed and
sealed by the evaluator.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Vann
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7793 – Schuco,
USA L.P.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the petitioner needs to submit a hardcopy of the evaluation report signed and
sealed by the evaluator.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7935 Metallum Enterprises
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the petitioner needs to submit a hardcopy of the evaluation report signed and
sealed by the evaluator.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
6331-R2 Uroll Shutters
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the applicant was missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by
evaluator. He stated the evaluation
report on-line is only for anchors; the evaluation report shall refer to the
product assembly; and the anchor spacing on 6331.1 exceeds tested values.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
6866-R1
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the applicant was missing the hardcopy of the evaluation report signed and
sealed by evaluator. He stated the
evaluation does not indicate the source of analysis; thickness and grade of
product is not indicated; and the product is not described on evaluation or on
installation instructions.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7573 NuAir Windows and Doors
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the applicant needs to revise the evaluator name; indicate on evaluation source
of rational analysis; resubmit hard copy signed and sealed; indicate testing of
“optional pocket detail”; and provide anchor analysis.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7574 NuAir Windows and Doors
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the applicant needs to indicate on evaluation source of rational analysis;
resubmit hardcopy signed and sealed; indicate if testing was for both flange
and fin conditions; and provide anchor analysis.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7625 CAT-5 Protections, inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
it was deferred from the October 2006 Commission meeting. He stated the product
was not tested for plastics requirements in HVHZ indicate “no” for use within
HVHZ; indicate minimum and maximum slopes; indicate reaction at connection
points; and indicate distance past the openings.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered
a second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7626-R1 YKK AP America
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
7626.2 and .6 are a dry system with insulated glass; and the petitioner needs
to verify the reliability of the gasket for weathering requirements.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7697 A.C.C. manufacturing, LLC
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the evaluation indicates use of rational analysis, which is not acceptable for
an impact product; and the applicant needs to verify glass separation for the
120’ span.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7701 Atlantic-Pacific International Marketing, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
for use outside HVHZ the product should indicate the product was tested to UL
580 (a component of TAS 125); installation instructions need to indicate compliance
with 2001 FBC, not the 2004 FBC.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7757 NuAir Windows and Doors
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the applicant needs to indicate on evaluation source of rational analysis and
plastics testing; and resubmit hardcopy signed and sealed.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7759 NuAir Windows and Doors
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating the
applicant needs to indicate an evaluation source of rational analysis and
plastics testing; resubmit hardcopy signed and sealed; and demonstrate CH 24 is
complied with, or indicate not for HVHZ.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
7777 Moulding Associates Incorporated
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
there was no indication of side lite anchor; and the applicant needs to
indicate hardware as tested.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7819 Solatube International, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the applicant needs to submit a hardcopy of the evaluation report signed and
sealed by the evaluator; remove report for Atofinia (not in accordance with
2004 FBC); and demonstrate compliance with weathering data and tensile testing
requirements within HVHZ or indicate not for use in HVHZ.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered
a second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Incomplete Applications
6751
Evaluation by Test
Report
Recommended for Approval
Product #’s:2469-R1; 6046-R1; 6526; 7534; 7535; 7679;
7720; 7781; 7791; 7818; 7829; 7843; 7869; 7890.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Recommended for Conditional Approval
5672 Paradigm Window Solutions
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the test report is not signed and sealed by a professional engineer; the
applicant needs to provide testing and certification of extrusion and laminate;
and AAMA shall verify QA agreement.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7754 Paradigm Window Solutions
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the test report is not signed and sealed by a professional engineer; the
applicant needs to provide testing and certification of extrusion and laminate;
AAMA shall verify QA agreement.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7748 Venetian Roof Tile, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the installation instructions do not comply with HVHZ and the applicant needs
to indicate “No” for use in HVHZ or comply with testing and installation
requirements.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7760 Best Rolling Doors
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
the application needs to indicate minimum concrete strength and size of wedge
anchors.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7804 Entegra Sales, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for conditional approval stating
for product 7804.1 the class 3 restriction should be removed by demonstrating
necessary compliance.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Recommended for Defferal
7529 B and B Sheet Metal
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for deferral stating the Valspar
Test was performed at a testing lab not approved by the Commission; there is no
indication of coating on panels; remove the letters that constitute
evaluations; and with so many different reports and comments this application
should be Evaluation Report by PE/RA.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7619 Barrier Metals
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for deferral stating there is no
indication of coating on panels; the letters that constitute evaluations should
be removed; and with so many different reports and comments this application
should be Evaluation Report PE/RA.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
7926 SunSky Metal, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product had been recommended for deferral stating load tables
cannot be used with “Test Report” method; there is no indication of coating on
panels; tletters that constitute evaluations should be removed; and with so
many different reports and comments this application should be Evaluation Report
PE/RA.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Incomplete Applications
Product #’s: 7936; 7940; 7942.
Evaluation by
Entity
Recommended for Approval
Product #’s:1712-R2; 7382; 7694; 7700; 7751; 7826; 7849.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
CONSIDER LEGAL ISSUES AND PETITIONS
FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT:
BINDING INTERPRETATIONS:
DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:
Supplemental
Hearing
DCA06-DEC-182 by Michael Thompson, HPA
Consulting Engineers Inc.
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner Bassett stated for questions 1, 2 and 4 the
Council vote resulted in a tie to uphold previous recommendation; question 3
was a unanimous vote to change the recommendation to “yes”.
Michael Thompson, CHPA Consulting Engineers Inc.
Mr. Thompson expressed appreciation to the Commission for
allowing a second hearing concerning the issue.
He stated there were a couple of issues that cannot be brought to
closure. He explained the first was
Section 403.2.2 of the Mechanical Code.
He read from that code “Transfer air except where recirculation from
such spaces is prohibited by Table 403.3.
Air transferred from occupied spaces is not prohibited from serving as
make-up air for required exhaust systems in such spaces as kitchens, baths,
toilet rooms, elevators and smoking lounges.”
He continued reading “The amount of transfer air and exhaust air shall
be sufficient to provide the flow rates as specified in Sections 403.3 and
403.3.1. The required outdoor air rates
specified in Table 403.3 shall be introduced directly into such spaces or into
the occupied spaces from which air is transferred or a combination of both.” He stated CHPA Consulting believes they are
in compliance as they have supplied the make-up air through the corridor; the
air is then being transferred from the corridor to the guest room and out
through the exhaust system. He further
stated this design practice has been in use under many different codes,
referencing this hotel the Commission meets in as an example of this
design. Mr. Thompson stated, under
Section 601.2, Air Movement in Egress Elements, states “Corridors shall not
serve as supply return exhaust or ventilation air ducts with the following
exceptions; Use of a corridor as a source of make-up air for exhaust systems in
rooms that open directly onto such corridors including toilet rooms, bathrooms,
dressing rooms, smoking lounges, janitor closets shall be permitted provided
that each such corridor is directly supplied with outdoor air at a rate greater
than the rate of make-up air taken from the corridor. “
Mr.
Thompson then addressed the next point that remains open as an issue is how we
define occupiable space. He stated as
licensed professionals we look at the code as the letter of the code and the
spirit of the code, both of which we hope to comply with or exceed to the
greatest degree possible. He further
stated these do not include exit pathways or egress corridors. He believes
everyone is in agreement in this case this space would be defined as an exit
pathway. He continued stating he
believes this exit pathway can be defined as an occupied space since it is used
to transfer people to and from the guest rooms, room service attendants
attending different rooms, engineering personnel, and in certain areas of the
hotel, the space will be used as pre-function areas on different floors. He gave several examples of other areas which
are occupiable spaces, but are not defined in the code. He stated that if one would reason if it were
not occupiable space, there would be signage restricting the movement of the
public in those spaces. He then
respectfully requested the Commission to grant positive consideration for this
petition, indicating a hotel corridor is an occupiable space.
Mr.
Thompson then addressed Section 4.3.11.1.2.2 of NFPA 90A allows the transfer of
air by pressure differentials when door clearances do not exceed those specified
for fire doors in NFPA as did in the 2001 Florida Mechanical Code. He explained it his understanding there is a
clerical error in removing that one phrase between the transfer of the 2001
Code language to the 2004 Code language.
He stated in his opinion, the phrase is not needed because that method
of transfer air is included under NFPA 90A.
Mr.
Thompson offered closing comment stating his company’s first concern is the
safety of the public and doing what is right, complying with the Code both in
letter and in spirit. He asked the
Commission to give positive reconsideration of the declaratory statement as it
relates to the Peabody Hotel in Orlando, Florida.
Commissioner Bassett responded to Mr. Thompson’s comments
by stating Mr. Thompson had done a good job of paraphrasing what he had
written. He stated he would like to
emphasize a few things. He first
referenced the issue of the definition of occupiable space. He explained the definition talks about “In
which is equipped with means of egress, light and ventilation”; of which all
are required for a corridor. He
continued stating another issue was dirty air is not to be brought into clean
air areas. He explained since the
corridor is being supplied with 100% preconditioned outside air, he could not
see how the corridor would be dirtier than the room. He stated there was specific language in the
code that addressed the transfer of air around a doorway, which was removed due
to a clerical error. He further stated
this particular exclusion was put in the code by Florida and was to be brought
forward in the 2004 revisions, but it somehow was missed by staff. He clarified this was never intended to be
taken out nor was it addressed as something that should no longer be
there. He then stated the commentary of
the International Mechanical Code specifically addresses the first exemption
and why that should be allowed. He
further stated the commentary points out the requirements of having outdoor air
at a greater rate than the make-up air and the required amount of air to go
past the doorway is not excessive for the door.
Commissioner
Bassett then moved approval to respond yes to all four questions in the
petition. Commissioner McCombs entered a
second the motion. Vote to approve the
motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Declaratory
Statements:
Second
Hearings-
DCA06-DEC-200
by Warren Schafer, P.E.
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Goodloe
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
DCA06-DEC-201 by
Warren Schafer, P.E.
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Carson
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
DCA06-DEC-212 by Steve Munnell, Florida
Roofing & Sheet Metal Association
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
McCombs moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA06-DEC-215
by Bruce Kaiser, Wind Tripper, Corporation
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and stated the POC deemed the issues were
outside the scope of Rule 9B-72.
Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA06-DEC-216 by
Eddie Fischer
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and stated the POC deemed the issues were
outside the scope of Rule 9B-72.
Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC
recommendation. Commissioner Carson
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
DCA06-DEC-218 by
Paul B. Dickson, CBO, City of Cape Coral
Mr. Richmond described the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Mr. Richmond explained there had been significant
discussions both within the Commission and outside the Commission relative to
the issue. He stated the current
recommendation is that the Coral Walk
Shopping Center, which includes a Super Target is comprised of a single
building; has demonstrated compliance with Section 507.2 of the Building Code,
therefore the area limitations of Table 503 do not apply to the project. Mr. Richmond repeated there had been
significant discussions outside the Commission which has included discussion of
certain interested parties positions with particular commissioners. He stated the discussions, in his view, would
constitute exparte communications in a quasi judicial decision. He asked if anyone who has had discussions
regarding the in which a particular result has been urged upon the Commissioner
that they disclose the full nature, content and deliverer of that communication
at this time.
Commissioner Wiggins expressed concerns with the
declaratory statement, stating he disagreed with it. He asked if he should present the analysis he
has at this time or if he should wait to see if public input will be offered
first.
Mr. Richmond responded explaining at this time he would
like to get a disclosure from those who have received exparte communications,
who they have talked to about the issue at hand, and what those communications
have been.
Commissioner Wiggins indicated he had spoken to Mo Madani
about this previously.
Mr. Blair asked, as requested by Mr. Richmond, if any
other Commissioner had spoken to anyone about this. He stated he was not seeking discussion on
the issue; just disclosing who Commissioners may have spoken to and what was
discussed.
Commissioner Sanidas disclosed content of a conversation
he overheard a group of people discussing this issue and he stated he had said
to the group he agreed this should have gone to the building official first and
not the Commission. He explained he felt
it was improperly before the Commission.
Mr. Richmond asked who was holding the discussion.
Commissioner Sanidas stated he did not recall.
Mr. Blair asked Mr. Richmond if there was any action the
Commission should take.
Chairman Rodriguez opened for comment from the
Commission.
Commissioner Wiggins offered comment stating the
declaratory statement should first be dealt with at the local level. He continued stating the request is a
variance from the Code based on the literal reading and understanding of the
Building Code. He explained it did not
meet 507.2 because the building is not surrounded by a 60 ft public way and
private property entirely around the building. He questioned whether the entire
property around the building is controlled by the Target owner, which would be
one requirement that it meets this 60 ft open space. He stated it also does not meet 507.4 which
allows you to reduce the 60ft to 40 ft because it is directly abutting a
building next door which precludes meeting the 40 ft reduced open space
requirement as well. He continued
stating there are many other issues dealing with tenant space; if it went with
this as just one entire building and the Target building, with the other
buildings next to it, it would be precluded forever from having certain other
occupancy types in the rest of that building.
He explained this provision is limited to Group B, Group F, Group M,
Group S, Occupancies. He further explained none of those other tenant
occupancies could ever be an A2 occupancy, for example, which would be a 50
seat or greater restaurant, which is often the case in some of these shopping
centers. He stated the only way this
could be dealt with would be by having control of that through the developer or
owner of that Target, which he or she does not have that control.
Commissioner
Wiggins further stated the most important point is the issue is totally
contrary to the intent of the Code. He
explained the Code was crafted with this section to deal with one building
under the control and ownership of one person.
He stated this was put together many years ago in the model codes to
allow one building to have unlimited area, if it has a total accessible 60 ft
open space all the way around the building or when it meets the criteria of the
reduced 40ft for firefighting purposes and for other fire protection purposes. He restated this does not meet that original
intent of the Code. He continued stating
this was a building under one ownership.
He stated the other verbiage in the statement talks about other ownerships
of other buildings on the property. He
stated this brings up another question whether the tenants were under some type
of condominium or separate property line ownership; which is listed in the
declaratory statement, as well.
Commissioner Wiggins stated with regards to the definition of building
which is contrary to the definition of building line; the definition of
building line in the Building Code, under Chapter 2 is “a line that is
established by law beyond which a building shall not extend.” He further stated in the declaratory
statement it says the building does extend beyond the property line; the
property line of Target and the property line that extends beyond that by the
developer of the shopping center. He
stated in this particular case, the property owner is willing to provide fire
rated walls on the common walls where it joins the rest of the building. He continued stating Section 705.2 under
firewalls, it clearly states each portion of a building separated by one or
more firewalls that comply with the provisions of this section shall be
considered a separate building. He
clarified that this building will be considered a separate building, the one
adjacent to it will be considered a separate building and all the others who
are likewise separated will also be considered separate buildings, in addition
to the fact if they are under separate ownership they are in a separate
building.
Commissioner Wiggins summarized his comments stating
there seems to be clear Code language which would not allow this
interpretation. He offered, at the very
least, there were alternate means by which to deal with this situation, such as
going to the boards of appeals or local boards, but the literal interpretation
of the Code would not allow this as a declaratory statement; it might allow it
to go before a local board or boards of appeals by providing some alternate
method of compliance with extra fire sprinklering or safety protections. He stated the Code, as written, was not
intended to allow multiple ownership; the definition of building line clearly
states this would be considered more than one building.
Mr. Richmond noted the declaratory statement was
petitioned by the building official. He
stated is not appropriately heard at this point by an appeals court because the
building official was asking the Commission for clarification. He also stated this was basically an adoption
of the staff recommendation, which was in part based on that very definition of
building line; a line established by law, not established within the Code, not established
within Chapter 553. He further stated
this has been acknowledged by BOAF, the Miami-Dade Co-Compliance Office, the
Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals and the International Code Council
when they signed off on the commentary Eric Stafford provided. He continued stating this commentary states
this term defines limitations or boundaries for construction of a building; the
line is typically established by a zoning statute for rights of way dedication
and is not specified in the Code. He explained
the Code does not define where you can build or things along those lines, which
would be found in development review, under Chapter 163. He stated the intervener delivered
inconclusive evidence to the Commission that they have obtained development
approval for this project that contains certain limitations that will be
recorded in the minutes. He noted he did
not think the future concerns are actually something the Commission can rule
upon; but those concerns would be of record and the appropriate
jurisdiction. He stated, ultimately, the
Code does not support an alternative conclusion in this case. He further stated this was an issue had dealt
with for several years before coming to the Commission. He offered clarification stating the Building
Code controls how a house is put together not where it can be built.
Mr. Blair asked Mr. Richmond if it was his recommendation
to affirm the previous action.
Mr. Richmond stated that was correct.
Kathleen Croteau, Cape Coral Deputy Building Official
Ms. Croteau offered comment stating the Target shopping
complex was not presented initially as a single building; rather it was
presented as 5 separate buildings…. (See
ICC Representation for Code
Interpretation on Declaratory Statement, From:
Ronnie Green [RGreen@iccsafe.org] To:
Kathleen Croteau, Sent: Friday,
October 27, 2006 9:27 AM) She
explained the Planning Division does have a copy of the recorded plot, which
was approved. She stated, however, the
Planning Division is not looking for Florida Building Code requirements. She explained their purpose is directed
specifically at zoning purposes; for instance whether it meets the intent of
the area, what uses it can be used for, the location, drainage and storm water,
utilities, etc. Ms. Croteau stated she
had posed the question to Ronald Green, Senior Technical Staff for the
International Code Council from ICC. She
continued stating the first question was “Does a 2 bead fully sprinklered
building with 60 foot open space three sides and zero feet open on the one side
qualify for the unlimited modification of 507.2.” She quoted his answer was “No, for the
building to be unlimited it must be surrounded and adjoined by public ways and
yards not less than 60 feet in width.
She compared this to the Target store stating it has 60 feet clearance on three sides and a zero foot clearance on
the one side.
Ms.
Croteau stated her second question was “Can a structure be considered one
building if it is built across lots with separate ownerships?” She reported Mr. Green had answered stating
“The Code does not have any provisions for a single building to cross lot
lines. The Code requirements are based
on a building being on a single lot and the fire distance separation for that
building. A single building crossing lot
lines would not be Code compliant.” She
stated there is no provision in the Code for a single building built across lot
lines although there are provisions for multiple buildings built on one lot or
with assumed or imaginary lot lines placed in those instances. Ms. Croteau believed in this instance moving
or removing lot lines has no significance as it has no relevance to the fire
safety issues. Ms. Croteau referenced
commentary relative to different lot lines and the definition of a lot line. She stated Chapter 5 goes over the provision
to regulate minimum type construction.
She continued stating Section 506 describes the allowable modifications
to the area limits in Table 503 for buildings with sprinkler systems or larger
separation distances from adjacent properties or public ways. She reiterated the Code review for the design
of any building begins in Chapter 5, but the determination of the minimum
required type of construction based on the use and size of the building.
Ms.
Croteau further stated misapplication of Chapter 5 can result in a multitude of
related areas in subsequent Code applications.
She offered since the Code requirements depend on the type of
construction that is required for the building if this one issue is missed
there are more areas such as exterior wall and fire separation distances in
Chapter 7. She stated Chapter 5 is
applicable to all new structures and existing structures that are to be
enlarged. She stated allowable height in
these areas are to be evaluated on the basis of classification, type of
construction, location on the property relative to the lot lines and other
structures in the presence of an automatic sprinkler system. She further stated the open limits basically
state the open space has to be on the same lot or dedicated for public
use. She continued stating the owner or
jurisdiction can control this space that is assumed to be open for the purposes
of the area increase. She stated it was
obvious one could not encumber a neighbor a future neighbor’s property with a
requirement that the space will always remain unoccupied.
Commissioner
Greiner requested clarification concerning how the buildings were permitted.
Ms. Croteau responded the building had been permitted as
five separate buildings.
Commissioner Greiner asked if the Commission was misled
with the declaratory statement with respect to how the building was permitted.
Ms. Croteau replied no.
Mr. Richmond interjected comment stating the Super Target
had intended the permit to be considered for one building and provide a 60 foot
space open limit for the entire development.
He stated the statement read as though the developers sought to have it
permitted as a single building and it wasn’t.
Ms. Croteau replied that was correct. She offered clarification that five separate
buildings were submitted, but they wanted them permitted as one as far as the
limitations and construction type.
Commissioner Greiner restated his question asking if they
were asking for a permit for one building including all five of these areas.
Ms. Croteau then read the definition of fire separation…”the distance measured from the building face
to the closest interior lot line, center line of a street, alley or public way or to an
imaginary line between two buildings on the same lot.” She read “the
distance should be measured at right angles from the face of the wall.” She reiterated this does not say anything
about the building crossing separately owned or adjacent lots and it includes a
provision for putting in imaginary line in if they are on the same lot. She then read the definition of a lot line…”Line dividing one lot form another, a
street or public way. Lot lines are
legally recorded divisions between two adjacent lands or parcels. They are the reference points for the
location of the building on an exterior separation and for other Code
purposes.” She stated the lot line
is of relevance in location of the building in relation to the lot line. She further stated the developers were trying
to get unlimited area with no qualification for those special provisions which
would indicate the need to comply with the limitations in Table 503.
Commissioner Kidwell asked if the property owners had
tried to permit as one building would the City of Cape Coral have approved it.
Ms.
Croteau responded no due to the location of the property line.
Commissioner Kidwell asked for clarification if the local
building department would have required them to pull separate permits per unit.
Ms. Croteau clarified “per property”. She stated there are only two parcels on this
property.
Commissioner Kidwell anticipated the Super Target could
have been one and the shopping center could have been the other.
Ms. Croteau stated that was correct. She further stated they had tried
alternatives letting the
developers know the alternate construction methods were to keep that parcel as
one and not subdivide, then the building could be built as one. She reported this suggestion was declined.
Commissioner Carson asked if this issue was the first
time Target has tried to do a project similar to this in this state.
Ms. Croteau responded Target had given them instances
where they had done some, but she could not say if the Codes were correctly
interpreted. Ms. Croteau then stated the lot line was relevant and Target did
not apply for the permit as one complete structure, but as one building by
itself. She explained the type of
construction is a major concern. She
further stated there are several provisions in the Code which allows multiple
buildings to be placed on one lot, but no provisions stating a building can
cross adjacent lots. She then referenced
Figures 506.2.1, 506.2.1.12, 506.2, 503.1.3, 503.1, 506.2.22, 507.6.2, 607.63,
diagrams for instance when you are supposed to be taking into consideration the
distances to property or lot line and then determining the type of construction
based on that.
Mr. Richmond asked what in the Code specifically
prohibits its construction over lot lines.
Ms. Croteau responded it is prohibited because the
provision is not called out as a provision you can do. She stated the lot line
and the distance to the lot line is significant.
Mr. Richmond countered asking if her position is that
anything the Code does not say you can do specifically, you are prohibited from
doing.
Ms. Croteau then replied there are alternate construction
methods.
Mr. Richmond asked for clarification, stating there is no
section in the Code that prohibits building across property lines.
Ms. Croteau concurred stating it does not state specifically
one cannot build buildings across property lines, but it does say where a
building may be built in direct relation to the property line. She further stated is does not need to state
it specifically because it indicates it in several places when discussing the
placement of multiple buildings on one lot.
Mr. Richmond asked if this is a circumstance related to
putting multiple buildings on one lot.
Ms. Croteau responded no, then stated it is one provision
the Code allows you to have. She stated
that there is no provision for building a building across adjacent lots.
Mr. Richmond then stated the Code does not prohibit it
though, just does not allow it.
Ms. Croteau concurred.
She then pointed out the 60 foot open space clearance needs to be on the
same lot and the space. She stated the
space that is indicated for that 60 foot, to allow for unlimited modifications,
is not on the same lot.
Mr. Richmond asked for clarification as to where
specifically it is located in the Code.
Ms. Croteau stated 506.2.2 reads “such open spaces will
be either on the same lot or dedicated for public use and should be accessed
from a street or a fire lane.”
Mr. Richmond added it could also be dedicated for public
use.
Ms. Croteau stated there is nothing dedicated for public
use on that third side, which is a zero lot line.
Mr. Richmond asked what difference the lot makes. He continued what difference sub regulation
has to Code consideration. He offered a
for instance asking what if Target waited until after the building is permitted
to take ownership of the property, as selling property does not require a
building permit.
Ms. Croteau stated she was baffled by Mr. Richmond’s
question as the lot line has everything to do with Chapter 5 and how the Code
is interpreted. She further stated one
could assume every city block could be one building…
Mr. Richmond stated if there were one owner to this
entire project and the building was built and it would be Code compliant if
there were only one owner of that property.
He asked if after the fact the owner sells the dirt underneath it to
Target would they need a building permit.
Ms. Croteau responded no, but it should have to go
through the zoning and planning commission, which would then notify the
building department and ask them if that would be Code compliant.
Mr. Richmond asked if this project had already gone
through your zoning and planning commission.
Ms. Croteau responded the site itself had.
Mr. Richmond asked for clarification as to whether it was
approved as proposed.
Ms. Croteau responded it was approved for zoning and
planning purposes alone, not for building.
She explained the only thing looked at relative to the building side
during the planning and zoning of site development is handicap accessibility of
handicap spots.
Mr. Richmond concurred stating the issue is not a
building issue.
Paul Dickson, Building Official, City of Cape Coral
Mr. Dickson offered comment stating the issue is a
building issue because the section in Chapter 5 specifically states it shall be
on the same lot and the commentary states why.
He stated when this was brought to his attention this is the reason it
was not approved when it was originally submitted. He further stated since then, the applicant
has submitted a building for Type 1B so the project can move forward pending
the decision of this board. He stated he
wanted to make sure everyone has an understanding that the lot line does have
an affect how a building is designed, by height, area, materials used,
etc. He expressed concern that a
decision here could set precedence. He further stated this decision is not just
about this Target project, it will determine how projects are looked at across
the state.
Commissioner Greiner asked how the application was
originally submitted.
Mr. Dickson stated the application was submitted as a
single building on one lot of a two lot parcel for the shopping center, as a
Type 2B building.
Commissioner Greiner asked if the application was
submitted without the parcel line.
Mr. Dickson responded no, the original application had
the parcel line on it. He explained it
was turned down because the area modification was so extreme it needed that 60
foot space on all four sides in order for it to get the unlimited modifications
Commissioner Greiner asked if the concern was for the 60
feet or the property line when the original application was submitted.
Mr. Dickson responded he was concerned about the 60 foot
since Chapter 5 states that it will be on the same lot or the lot will be
abutting a public way so the 60 feet would remain open.
Bob Boyer, Code Development Committee, BOAF
Mr. Boyer stated all the points had been made and he
would ask that the Commission consider their opinion.
Harold Law, Building Official, Sanibel Island,
Florida, BOAF
Mr. Law stated they were in agreement with everything the
deputy building official had brought before them. He stated a quote had been read from Eric
Stafford indicating property lines had no significance. He further stated he called Mr. Stafford and
Mr. Stafford politely stated someone was wrong since property lines have always
been important part of the Codes. He
continued stating Section 507.2 states” the unlimited modifications area must
be surrounded by public way or a yard.”
He read the Chapter 2 definition of a yard reads “an open space other
than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where
specifically provided by this Code on the lot in which the building is
situated.” He stated the fourth side of
this project does not have the “yard” required to get unlimited square footage
to this construction. He further stated
the Type 1 construction is approvable by the Building Code, but the Type 2 is
not. He stated if they believe the four
hour fire wall is equivalent to the 60 foot open space on that side of that
building, he would hope there is documentation to support that. He expressed concern the Commission could
find themselves expert witnesses for fire if they vote on it with no documentation
behind the decision.
George Mazzarantani, Sean McIntyre, Mr. O’Dell, Representing Target
Mr. Mazzarantani expressed concerns that a decision is
being made without supporting documentation.
He stated the issue is a lot line.
He stated they were in agreement with Ms. Croteau and Mr. Dickson and
the simple definition of whether a lot line creates building is the
issues. He further stated they were in
agreement with the last vote 19-2, the staff’s opinion, and Counsel. He offered that when there is discussion of
the 60 foot space around the building you are presuming that a lot line creates
the building, which is an incorrect assumption.
He questioned, given the people’s concerns, why a ruling has not been made,
and further if the issue is of such precedential value
why wasn’t a decision made. He reported
eleven other jurisdictions have done it this way, as outlined in Commissioner’s
packets. He stated Commissioner D’Andrea
had said on record this is the way it is done in Hillsborough County. He stated in his opinion the fact that the
buildings were submitted separately was irrelevant. He summarized stating the
main focus is to determine if the lot line creates the building. He stated they were in agreement that Counsel
was specifically on point in this matter.
Commissioner Carson asked if the Fire TAC was the TAC
that reviewed the petition.
Mr. Madani stated the Fire TAC was responsible for the
recommendation and the vote was 50-50.
He continued stating he made the recommendation based on the Fire TAC
position. Mr. Madani further stated he
searched in the Code for something relating the lot line to the building. He offered his opinion is that if there is
one property owner, it should be up to the property owner to decide if he wants
to build one building and comply with the Codes.
Mr. Blair provided an overview of the issue and the
discussions pertaining to the issue. He
opened for comments different from what has already been stated.
Mr. Richmond then offered clarification stating while
there may be some issues with the definition of yard; the definition of public
way has been met by the development approval and has been recorded with this 60
foot open space. He stated it has
contained in 1002.1 of the Code…”Street,
alley, or parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a street that has
been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for
public use, with a clear width and height of not less than ten feet.”
Commissioner Wiggins referenced the definition of public
way stating the portion of the building adjacent to the other building is not
open for ten feet permanently, nor does it meet the definition of yard as far
as it being “an open space other than a
court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically
provided by this Code on the lot in which the building is situated.”
He stated, unless he is
misunderstanding, it seems neither the public way nor the yard definition works
in this case since there is a building that occupies space directly adjacent to
Target.
Mr. Mazzarantani responded to Commissioner Wiggin’s
comment stating again that Commissioner Wiggin’s question presupposes that the
lot line creates the building, which is the issue here. He suggested the focus on what the building
official or his deputy is stating and listen to your own staff and counsel that
the Code does not contain anywhere the proposition that the property line
designates a boundary between one building and another. He reiterated that the Development Order the
City of Cape Coral issued did have the building lines, the site plan as part of
it.
Mr. Richmond concurred stating it was never his intention
to state the Code does not deal with lot lines.
He continued stating there is nothing in the Code that says a property
line defines a building. He further
stated that line is not contained in the Code, but in zoning ordinances. He
reported this commentary had been signed off by BOAF, as well as a host of
other agencies.
Commissioner Kidwell offered comment stating it seems
there is a difference in the interpretation of the definition of lot line. He stated the Code definition of lot line is
subjective stating “a portion or parcel of land considered as a unit. He stated his opinion is this could be considered
a lot.
Commissioner Bassett stated no one has explained to him
how the building is not safe to inhabit.
He stated the issue is not a building code issue it would be more of a
civil issue.
Commissioner Sanidas stated the older codes explained
where a building could be placed in terms of property lines and were very
explanatory. He further stated the
building officials had great latitude in determining how they used the Code,
such as combining lots to make bigger lots.
He offered sometimes this entailed moving the lot lines as long as we
did not end up with more lots than we started out with. He stated the planning commission had the
authority to make lots, but it was in their authority to decide if the lots
were safe, that was the building department.
He further stated in his county, Shelby, there was a local ordinance
stating there could be three sides with a sixty foot separation and the fourth
side could have a four hour firewall, with a three foot parapet in lieu of the 60 foot space.
Commissioner Kim offered comment expressing his apology
to the deputy building official of Cape Coral for the embarrassing tone in the
way she was questioned by DCA Counsel. He then moved approval of the
Commission’s previous action concerning the petition for declaratory
statement.
Commissioner Wiggins interjected comment stating the
public safety issue is that the complex would be allowed to provide lesser fire
safety around the perimeter of the building.
He stated the example of permitting duplexes which will be 75 feet wide
and built with a one hour firewall, but if later the building is to be
separated, the firewall must be changed to 2 hour firewall. He stated this is a similar analogy.
Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion. Vote resulted in 13 supporting; 7
opposed. Motion carried.
First Hearings-
DCA06-DEC-188, by
Kevin McGrath P.E., Four Seasons Solar Products, LLC
Dismissed
DCA06-DEC-250 by
Michael Griffin, Fugleberg & Koch
Withdrawn
DCA06-DEC-252 by Christopher M. Spence
Dismissed
DCA06-DEC-270 by
Cindy, CSP Roof Consultants
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Greiner moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA06-DEC-273
by Jack McLaughlin ORIOLUM Corp
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Greiner moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA06-DEC-282 by
Bert Kolodziej, P.E.
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Wiggins moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA06-DEC-283 by
James Lozier, Hurricane Harness Corporation
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Goodloe moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA06-DEC-284 by
Steve Munnell, FRSA
Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the
petition for declaratory statement and the POC’s recommendations as they
appeared in each Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
McCombs moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
RECESS UNTIL
WEDNESDAY
Wednesday,
December 06, 2006
The meeting of the Florida Building
Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 8:31 a.m. on
Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Tampa, Florida.
Mr. Blair briefly conducted a review
of the meeting agenda.
Commissioner Wiggins moved approval
of the meeting agenda. Commissioner
Greiner entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
CHAIR’S
DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chairman Rodriguez first addressed the issue of confusion
between work groups, POC’s, and TAC’s.
He explained workgroups are formed to provide industry and stakeholders
affected by Commission policy an opportunity to provide feedback and
recommendations prior to the implementation of Commission policy. He further
explained the workgroups are an attempt to provide access to of policy and
shows the Commission’s commitment to consensus-building. He stated instead of going straight to rulemaking
or simply deciding on a policy that affects interest groups, the Commission has
added this extra step in the process for complex issues. Chairman Rodriguez
continued stating the Commission also makes every effort to ensure workgroups
have representatives for all of the key stakeholder groups. He added the
workgroup process is a prelude to a review by the relevant TAC, POC, and/or Ad
Hoc committee.
ChairmanRodirguez noted it had come to his attention
that some stakeholders feel that bad behavior during workgroup and committee
meetings has resulted from certain appointments to the committees. He indicated when he assumed the role of
Chairman one focus of the Commission was to make sure those who appeared before
the Commission to advocate their positions would have as much time available to
them as possible to speak their piece.
He stated these individuals have been asked to make every attempt to not
demonize the opponent. He explained the
Commission is committed to hearing all sides only asking the individuals who
address the Commission to not repeat the same points, instead indicate their
agreement with views expressed. He
offered his assurance
he will continue to make every effort to appoint members who participate in an
honest and productive manner, on behalf of their constituent groups, and are
committed to the development process”.
He
stated differences of opinions are an expected part of the process. He added that people appear here from
different walks of life and will have different viewpoints; these viewpoints
should be discussed respectfully.
Chairman Rodriguez addressed the staff’s role in these
workgroups and committees. He
acknowledged there are disagreements within these workgroups and committees;
when these disagreements occur the staff’s role is supplying the history of the
issue, technical information, and any other clarifications the workgroup can
utilize in it’s consideration of the issue.
He expressed the staff has the right to express their opinions, even
their preferences, but are not to be an advocate of any partiality.
Chairman Rodriguez then addressed policy on the
workgroup’s recommendations. He explained that in general, special topics are
assigned to workgroups, constituted with stakeholder representation from the
various interests affected by the issue. He continued stating the workgroups
develop consensus recommendations that will then be reviewed by the appropriate
TAC, POC, or Ad Hoc committee, who will in turn send the package of
recommendations to the Commission.
Chairman
Rodriguez explained that TAC’s are constituted according to ANSI participation
standards. He stated the objective is to
create a balance between producers, consumers, and general interests. He
indicated he has been asked how the Commission is asked how the Commission does
what it does. He offered although there
are many misconceptions it follows a process that is incremental, just like
everything else that works. He explained
by the time the Commission is asked to decide on special issues, a workgroup
recommendation from stakeholders has been developed. He stated the members of the Commission who
are experts in their field are called upon for their knowledge He continued stating the Commission receives
reviews made and delivered by a TAC/POC after recommendations. He reiterated by the time the issue is before
the Commission, there has to be some very compelling reason or new information
that is brought forth for the Commission to waiver. He stated if you want to prevail in the process
he recommends you do not try to so by force.
He explained there are different mechanisms available to politicians,
but at the Commission level it is better to be a diplomat than a partisan
politician. He stated the Commission
recognizes every one here has special interest which is why they are called
stakeholders and why he often refers Public Comment as Special Interest
Comment. He commented that all involved
here have time pressures and a lot at stake, but it is important to remember
why we are here and to and why people keep coming back is due to the collegial
atmosphere we foster.
WORKGROUP
APPOINTMENTS
Chairman
Rodriguez stated Commissioner Gonzalez had asked to be replaced on the Product
Validation Workgroup and Garage Door Shutter Workgroup and has asked the
Commission to appoint Jamie Gascon to that Committee. Chairman Rodriguez welcomed Mr. Gascon on
behalf of the Commission.
Chairman Rodriguez announced the
appointment of Jack Humberg to replace Johnny Long on the Accessibility TAC.
The Chair noted that Johnny will be greatly missed, and on behalf of the
Commission, welcomed Jack Humberg to the TAC.
Chairman
Rodriguez then addressed the Governor’s Property Casualty Insurance Reform
Committee. He informed the Commission
that the Committee met October 26, 2006, in Tallahassee and he was invited to
attend, but was unable to do so. He stated upon his request, Commissioner Ed
Carson represented the Commission and Rick Dixon accompanied him at the
Committee meeting. He noted as the
Committee’s name suggests, their charge from the Governor was to address
difficulties encountered by the insurance industry as a result of recent
hurricane storm activity in Florida during 2004 and 2005. Chairman Rodriguez highlighted the
recommendations that relate to the Commission and the Code. They are as
follows:
·
Put a uniform statewide building code in place
that requires American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) wind lines to be
adopted and prohibit any changes in future statewide building codes unless such
a change enhances the structural integrity of the code as it relates to wind
protection.
·
Develop a code plus standard that the insurance
industry would recognize for maximizing premium discounts.
·
Encourage local governments to promote and
advocate for code plus structures by providing incentives to builders like
density bonuses, lower impact fees, and concurrency credits when new
construction is built at higher levels than
the current approved building code.
Mr. Richmond reported the
Property and Casualty Committee came out with a draft bill of about 231 pages
total legislation. He indicated the
portions that affect the Commission start at page 56 and continue. He stated this represents an ongoing
limitation of the Commission’s ability to update the wind design standard in
Florida, which locks it into ASCE7-02.
He explained that is consistent with the Code and what is available at
present, but in order to update that standard, an interested party would have
to return to the legislature to do that.
Mr. Richmond further stated the draft bill also contains some additional
limitations on the Commission’s ability to adopt statewide amendments, as
mentioned by the Chair. He stated it
also requires the Commission to develop the standards for the Voluntary Code
plus the Building Code by July 1, 2007.
He indicated this was an optimistic schedule in light of the Legislature
and the new Governor’s office having agreed to call a Special Session which
will commence January 16, 2007. He
stated all indications are that the Committee’s recommendations will be
considered. He reported that he most
recently learned that the Speaker of the House has reported a consensus has
been reached, although no bills have been filed formerly to show what that
consensus reflects. He stated he hopes
to have more information when he returns to Tallahassee, but would expect this
to come up in some form in January, which is before the Commission’s next
meeting. He continued stating the
Governor-elect’s office is still forming and currently communication is being
sought with those who have been identified to determine what the boundaries are
for DCA as an agency supporting the Commission.
He reminded the Commissioners they should feel free to contact their
local legislators if that is what they feel is necessary.
Commissioner
Greiner noted he liked the fact they had installed ASCE7-02, but
he felt uncomfortable with the inability to be able to update that when it’s
necessary. He asked if there are
negotiations and other things going on prior to January 16, would the Commission
cover that with the standard conference call.
Chairman Rodriguez replied stating Mr.
Richmond would be monitoring that situation and stated a conference call could
be very useful as update.
Chairman Rodriguez referenced The Property Casualty Commission
Report stating the Commission may modify the selected model codes and standards
as needed to accommodate the specific needs of the state, but only to the
extent that such modification would enhance not weaken the structural integrity
of buildings constructed in compliance with the state’s building code as it
relates to wind protection. He then
addressed a letter received from Senator Bennett and commented on it as
follows:
Chairman Rodriguez
informed the Commission that he had received a letter from Senator Bennett in
late October 2006, requesting action by the Commission. The Chair explained the
issue as outlined in the letter is Senator Bennett has heard that certain
jurisdictions are not accepting state approved products unless those products
also have a Miami-Dade County NOA.
Chairman Rodriguez stated the Senator noted the law states that a
product bearing a Florida product approval does not require any further
documentation. The Senator cited the applicable statutes and requests the
Commission “develop a memorandum that highlights the requirements specified in
law and that clearly indicates that a separate NOA is not required for
state-approved products”. The Senator also recommended that the memo “be
distributed to all building officials and posted on the BOAF website”.
Chairman
Rodriguez stated that the Commission is drafting a response, indicating the
desire to be as helpful as possible in responding to the Senator’s request,
while remaining within the Commission’s authority. He stated the Commission
will work with the building official Commissioners to disseminate
the information to all building departments with which they are
affiliated. He noted the issue was
discussed at the Product Approval POC on Monday, and representatives from Palm
Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties offered to work with the Commission to
craft and distribute a memo to clarify the issue. The Chairman stated he has
been assured that each of the three counties is clear on the law and rules, and
has and will, continue to communicate the requirements to their local
jurisdictions and provide any education needed.
Chairman Rodriguez explained that some
of the confusion is likely terminology, interchanging the term NOA for FL
product approval, and could probably be corrected with education and
communication. He stated that he had also been informed that some jurisdictions
are requiring additional levels of review for State approved products, than is
being required for products with an NOA. He further stated the locals have
every right, and should ensure a product meets its “conditions of use”, but not
an arbitrary extra level of review. He informed the Commission that the three
counties have assured the Commission that they are maintaining a level playing
field and this is their official policy in that regard. As long as the permit
applicant has submitted the correct documentation, additional documentation is
not required. The Chair informed the Commission that he will write Senator
Bennett and let him know that the Commission has reviewed the issue and has
crafted a response that addresses his concerns.
Chairman Rodriguez addressed the carbon monoxide alarm
requirements issue. He reported it
has come to his attention there is an effort to provide an exemption to the Florida
Building Code allowing local jurisdictions to adopt their own requirements
regarding carbon monoxide alarms in residential buildings. He stated again,
legislation is not the solution to a complex problem. He further stated local
jurisdictions are already free to adopt more stringent requirements until those
requirements sunset with the adoption of new editions of the Building Code. He
indicated the Commission will consider code amendments on this issue in the
2007 Update Cycle, with hopes for technology to have advanced so the TAC will
recommend approval. He stated the Commission will consider and hopefully
resolve the issue during the current Code update cycle that is in process.
Chairman Rodriguez concluded his comments stating there
is a Glitch Code Amendment effective date of December 12, 2006. He stated the Panhandle Windborne Debris
Region designation will go into effect March 8, 2007, unless the Florida
Legislature intervenes.
Chairman Rodriguez noted the update of the Commission
Workplan will be omitted due to changes that could affect the workplan
resulting from the 2007 Report to the Legislature.
SUPPLEMENTAL RULE DEVELOPMENT
WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-70, BUILDING CODE TRAINING PROGRAM
Chairman Rodriguez stated during the July meeting the Commission, at the
recommendation of the Education POC, voted to initiate rulemaking for Rule
9B-70, the Building Code Training Program.
He reported that at the August 22,
2006, meeting the Commission conducted a rule development workshop,
Commissioner Browdy read the Education POC’s recommendations into the record
and an opportunity was provided for public comment. He then reported at the October 2006
meeting, a second Rule Development Workshop on the Building Code Training
Program Rule was conducted in order to provide an additional opportunity for
input regarding rule language to implement enhancements to the Advance Course
Accreditation System, including establishing minimum criteria for the
development and accreditation of instructor-led advance courses; establishing
requirements for providers to update advance courses and submit for
accreditation within 60 days after the code changes
are approved by the Commission; establishing the deadline for completed advance
course applications to be placed in the "Pending FBC Action" file on
the Building Code Information System 23 days prior to a scheduled Commission
meeting; and finally, prohibiting cross-accreditation of advance courses.
Chairman Rodriquez noted that at the
October rule workshop there was significant substantive public comment provided
on the rule draft, and as a consequence the Commission assigned the Education
POC to review the comments, and provide recommendations to the Commission at a
supplemental rule development workshop.
He stated to that end, at the December 2006 meeting the Commission
conducted a supplemental rule development workshop in order to provide an
additional opportunity for public comment, and to consider the POC’s
recommendations.
Mr. Richmond opened the rule development workshop.
Commissioner
Browdy read the Education POC’s recommendations into the record and an
opportunity was presented for public comment. At the conclusion of public
comment an opportunity was offered for Commission discussion, and then the
Commission took the following action:
Mr. Blair reviewed the process any parties who wish to
address the Commission should come forward to make comments in favor or against
or bring up new points. He reminded the
gallery the Commission would like to hear all points and not repeat points
already made, but acknowledge agreement or bring forward new points.
Commissioner Browdy reported the Education POC met
December 4, 2006, in addition to it’s regularly scheduled meeting to discuss
proposed changes to Rule 9B-70 and heard Public Comment, of which much was
repetitive. He then reported he would be
entering that public comment for the record on a topic by topic basis. He stated the POC would request that Counsel
take the public comment and put it into proposed rule format for the ultimate
review and consideration by the Commission.
Commissioner Browdy stated the topics discussed during
the meeting were enhancements to the rule which included the following:
§
Delete obsolete
rule language regarding the equivalency exam which was originally in the rule.
§
Establish
criteria for creditor approval including the grandfathering of current creditors.
§
Create minimum
criteria for course accreditation.
§
Eliminate
cross-accreditation of courses.
§
Eliminate any
type of conflict of interests.
§
Clarify the
actual 50% threshold of the actual training course material being code related.
§
Providers would
have 60 calendar days from the effective date of the code adoption to submit
their courses for accreditation
§
That course
applications would be accredited and placed on BCIS system no later than 23
calendar days prior to next Commission meeting allowing the POC commissioners
and members of the POC adequate time to review the courses after accreditation
and before recommendation to the Commission.
§
DCA staff having
3 business days to move the Commission approved courses onto the BCIS system
§
Include a
facilitated audit of education up to2% of accredited and reaccredited courses.
Commissioner Browdy then requested the items be incorporated
into rule language for the consideration of the Commission.
Larry
Schneider, AIA Florida
Mr. Schneider offered comment stating the Education POC,
in which he is a participant, established effective communication, and
consensus, however, the design professional community has one concern for the
Commission to evaluate when it finally comes to the rule-making decision on the
issue. He referenced Bullet #6
“providers shall have 60 calendar days from effective date of code adoption to
submit their courses for reaccredidation.”
He indicated a strong belief that the 60 days should be from the
effective date of the Code, not the adoption date of the Code.
Mr. Richmond offered clarification stating he believed
the action of the committee was to approve for 60 days from the effective date
of the Code.
Mr. Schneider then stated the adoption and effective date
of the Code that they are concerned with.
Mr.
Blair further clarified stating striking the word “adoption” would resolve the
issue.
Mr.
Schneider agreed.
Mr.
Blair offered the recommendation the word “adoption” be stricken, which would
solve the issue.
Med Kopczynski
Mr. Kopczynski complimented the POC for their camaraderie
and consensus building efforts. He then
stated he was unable to speak at the last meeting therefore he had submitted a
letter with recommendations. He believed
the substantial part of the public comment was from him, and how BISC related
to this particular rule. He reported it was his understanding during the
meeting the committee voted favorably for the recommendations. He stated the two areas there had been some
disagreement were the 60 days for re-accreditation and the dates attendant to
get an issue on the agenda. He further
stated if the 60 days is clarified as just described they would grant favorably
to that, indicating he had sent the same suggestion in his letter to the
Commission. He stated the other variance
is that 23 days prior to the agenda formation.
He explained he believed this to be an excessive amount of time to be
able to put things on the agenda. He
continued stating it may be realistic, but still excessive and he asked the
Commission take a look at that and make a sound judgment. Mr. Kopczynski stated he was very pleased
with the work of the POC and with the recommendations coming forward. He further stated those recommendations
seemed to be very well balanced, well aired and well discussed.
Mr. Dixon offered comment stating the 60 days is
pragmatic. He wanted to reiterate what
the argument was relative to the 60 days. He stated the law requires 6 months
after adoption before implementation can occur and one of the reasons the three
months were added to the Code implementation schedule was because it takes
three months to get courses approved through all the boards and accredited by
the Commission. He further stated if the
Commission was to accept that the courses do not have to be reaccredited until
after the Code goes into effect that it reconsider the implementation date of
the Code and remove that 3 additional months not required by law. He concluded this would get this Code more in
sync with the national Code and bring this Code up to date.
Chairman Rodriguez asked if the time to do that was
during this workshop.
Mr. Dixon responded after the Commission makes its
determination on this Rule it can move forward to consider the Code
implementation schedule. He reiterated
the importance in linking all of these different processes.
Chairman Rodriguez agreed the more closely similar to the
national Code the better.
Mr. Richmond closed the rule development workshop.
Commissioner Browdy moved approval to integrate the nine
suggestions as amended then proceed with rule adoption. Commissioner D’Andrea seconded.
Commissioner Norkunas requested clarification concerning
the core curriculum.
Commissioner Browdy responded stating core accessibility
courses would be offered as alternative courses. He stated there would be no need to integrate
that language into the rule, rather that we have the administrative ability to
deal with an alternative core course for accessibility without putting it in
the rule; which is why it is not part of the discussion at this time; however
it will be discussed in the POC meeting.
Commissioner Bassett asked if the 60 days would go into
effect after the amendment or after approval.
He then stated he would vote against the motion because he is strongly
against trying to teach a code after the code has been implemented.
Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion. Vote resulted in 16 supporting; 6 opposed:
Norkunas, Dean, Vann, Mccombs, Hamrick, and Bassett. Motion failed.
Commissioner Bassett stated if the date of code adoption
was added back, he would support the motion.
Commissioner McCombs seconded that motion.
Commissioner Kim stated he voted in support of the motion
because if the training were offered prior to the implementation of the code,
the material would likely not be available; which is the practical issue he has
with it.
Commissioner Greiner added this has been explained to him
before that this is not the practical thing to do. He asked if someone could explain that to him
Commissioner Browdy offered clarification stating this
was an area of compromise clearly in the area of the education community’s
ability to produce timely, accurate information. He stated the Code seems to be an
evolutionary process, ever changing. He
indicated during the Ad Hoc committee on processes, one of the things we
discussed relative to trying to eliminate some of the annual updates and stick
to the triennial updates. He reported a
great deal of that concern was training people as the Code changes to be out in
front of those changes. He explained it
is a problem getting it out in advance by implementation, but we are trying as
best as we can.
Commissioner Greiner asked if it was possible to hear
from some of the proponents on the issue.
Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed the proponents had
spoken on the issue previously, but if necessary they could speak again.
Commissioner Hamrick offered comment stating he is a
provider and has a course out there soon to be up for accreditation which has
been updated to the 2007 Code. He
reported it was not made available to him, but he found it as quickly as
possible on the internet.
Commissioner Bassett added that what we are looking at is
the time period. He stated if it needs
to be 90 days that is okay with him. He
further stated if that means the materials were not available to teach, at least
during that one month it takes to get those materials, at least they would not
be giving false information on what they would be practicing in a month. He closed stating all it means, if the
materials were not there in time, there would be one month in which the
Commission would not be able to teach the course.
Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed the mechanics of
this are getting in the way of the process.
Commissioner McCombs concurred with Commissioner Bassett
then stated he had hoped to hear something different this morning, then stated
since he had not, he intended to vote with the majority.
Commissioner Wiggins requested clarification concerning
the motion and the Code adoption date.
Mr. Blair restated the motion is to adopt the nine bullet
points, with bullet #6 staying, but with a word change from effective to
adoptive instead.
Mr. Richmond stated the code adoption date is the date
the Rule is filed.
Mr. Dixon added what is available at the time of adoption
is the strike-underline of every change.
He stated this has to be available to the Department of State and the
public.
Commissioner Greiner asked what the timeframe would be
between adoption and implementation.
Mr. Dixon responded according to law that span is 6
months minimum.
Commissioner Greiner offered a friendly amendment to the
motion and say change the 60 to 120 days.
Mr. Blair restated the motion as amended that the
providers would have 120 calendar days from date of Code adoption to resubmit
their courses for reaccredidation.
Commissioner Bassett accepted the amendment. Commissioner McCombs accepted. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
CONSIDER
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Accessibility TAC
Commissioner Gross presented the report of the
Accessibility TAC. (See Accessibility TAC Minutes December 4, 2006)
Commissioner Gross requested Commission action on the
following items in the form of a motion.
He stated the committee would like to have a workshop on the physical
update of the 2-hour training course in January. He stated the committee had volunteered to
get the materials ready themselves rather than wait until material are supplied
to them.
Mr. Blair asked what the workshop would entail.
Commissioner Gross explained it would be to update the 2
hour training course, with the assistance of the Ad Hoc committee members.
Commissioner Wiggins seconded the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Gross then requested by motion a
subcommittee meeting to develop preliminary recommendations to update the
waiver application during February.
Commissioner Wiggins seconded.
Mr. Richmond requested for clarification purposes that we
refrain from the word workshop, as it is not the same as a formal rule
development.
Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote. Vote to approve
motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Gross then requested two more meetings
during March, one to discuss where detectable warnings should go on a site and
the other to discuss how to measure the turning space in the toilet room.
Wiggins seconded the motion. Vote to approve the motion unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Gross asked if someone from staff\ come to
the next TAC meeting to explain to the TAC exactly what those limitations are
from the rule development hearing.
Commissioner Wiggins seconded the motion. Vote to approve the motion unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Wiggins moved approval to accept the
report. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Mr. Blair
asked for clarification of why staff would be attending the TAC meeting in
March.
Code Administration TAC
Commissioner Wiggins presented the report of the Code
Administration TAC. (See Code Administration TAC Minutes December 5,
2006)
Commissioner Greiner moved approval. Commissioner D’Andrea seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the report was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Window Work Group
Chairman Rodriguez presented the report of the Window
Work Group. (Summary of Window Work Group’s Discussion)
Mr. Blair conducted a review of the package of
recommendations developed by the work group.
(See Work Group Recommendations
2006)
Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval. Commissioner Kidwell seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the report was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Shutter and Garage
Door Work Group
Chairman Rodriguez presented the report of the Shutter
and Garage Door Work Group. (See Shutter and Garage Door Work Group Summary)
Mr. Blair conducted a review of the work group’s
recommendations. (See Work Group Recommendations 2006)
Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval. Commissioner Carson seconded the motion. Vote to approve the report was unanimous.
Motion carried.
Mr. Blair called for public comment on the work group
recommendations. No one approached for
comment.
Energy TAC
Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Energy
TAC. (See Energy TAC Minutes December 4, 2006)
Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval. Commissioner Schulte seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the report was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Energy Code
Transition Study Work Group Recommendations
Chairman Rodriguez explained the purpose of the workgroup
was to evaluate the Florida Solar Energy Centers for recommendations and
comparisons regarding the Florida Energy Code and the International Energy
Conservation Code. He further explained
the workgroup’s charge was to present to the Commission a recommendation
whether to keep the Florida Energy Code as a template or adopt the IECC for
energy provisions. (See Energy Code Transition Study Work Group
Minutes)
Mr. Blair conducted a review of the work group’s
recommendations. (See Work Group Recommendations 2006)
Commissioner Browdy moved approval. Commissioner D’Andrea seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the report was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Mr. Blair called for public comment on the work group
recommendations. No one approached for
comment.
Mechanical TAC
Commissioner Bassett presented the report of the
Mechanical TAC. (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes December 4,
2006)
Commissioner McCombs moved approval. Commissioner D’Andrea seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the report was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Roofing TAC
Commissioner Schulte presented the report of the Roofing
TAC. (See Roofing TAC Meeting Minutes December 4, 2006)
Commissioner Schulte then requested Commission action on
the following item in the form of a motion; that a memo be sent to all building
departments regarding existing shingle stocks because it appears there are
large inventories of roofing shingles which do not meet the new shingle
labeling requirement effective December 8th 2006. He explained in order to allow this inventory
to be used it was requested that a memo regarding asphalt shingles clarifying
that ASTM-D3161 modified to 110 mph is equivalent to ASTM-D3161 class F which
complies with the requirement for wind resistance 150mph.
Commissioner Vann seconded motion. Vote to approve the
motion unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Browdy moved approval. Commissioner D Andrea seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the report was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Structural TAC
Commissioner Kim presented the report of the Structural
TAC. (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes December 4, 2006)
Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the report. Commissioner D’Andrea seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the report was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Education POC
Commissioner Browdy presented the report of the Education
POC. (See Education POC Meeting Minutes December 4, 2006)
Commissioner Browdy requested an action to approve the
following subject areas for potential advanced courses and fees from the CILB
and ECLB:
- Construction industry licensing board had
suggestions for outreach including billboards, website postings, articles
for trade publications, fax sheets and other short message means to alert
and reinforce the rules and laws relating to building code and licensure
requirements
- Electrical Contracting Licensing Board
recommended courses for safety on live electrical parts
·
Board of Landscape Architecture
recommends site and parking lot accessibility,
commercial swimming pools and spas, lighting (site and energy conservation), water
conservation through storm water design, site
design, roof gardens and green roofs, outdoor type structures (arbors,
shelters, large gathering facilities, etc.), LEED related topics.
- Board of Professional Engineers
recommends –
- Understanding
and applying Florida Building Code for facilities in the high velocity
hurricane zone (sequence of 2, 4 hour sessions)
- Understanding
and applying Florida Energy Code Commercial Building Compliance Methods
for HVAC systems and calculations for total building compliance (4 hrs)
- Understanding
and applying Florida Energy Code Commercial Building Compliance Methods
for lighting and electrical systems (2 hrs)
- Understanding
and applying Florida Building and Fire Prevention Codes for sprinkler and
standpipe design (4 hrs)
- Understanding
and applying Florida Building and Fire Codes for fire alarm design (2
hrs)
- Building Code Administrator and Inspector Board
recommends Code related courses, Training on electrical requirements of
the energy code,
ADA and
plumbing contractors
Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval. Commissioner Greiner seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Browdy continued stating the Council also
approved a proposal by the University of West Florida to create a statewide
building code training program utilizing a virtual construction video
library. He stated the proposal would be
included as part of an RFP contract with the administrator for the council.
Commissioner Browdy continued stating a 2-hour
accessibility course was discussed and the POC has recommended the Commission
create an alternative core course in accessibility to further emphasize the
need for accessibility training for all licensees.
Commissioner Gonzalez moved approval. Commissioner D’Andrea seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Browdy continued the POC then reviewed the
proposed suggestions to Rule 9-B 70, submitted by BCICLCE and since those
suggestions were contained in the previous report and also had been voted on in
the rule development workshop he would not repeat those at this time.
Commissioner Browdy continued stating the next item was
to approve the education to the 2007 Report to the Legislature. He indicated the POC recommended the
following items for inclusion into the report:
a need for additional consistent training on accessibility. He then stated the sole responsibility for
training should be placed on the Florida Building Code under one entity.
Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the recommendation
for inclusion to the Report to the Legislature.
Commissioner Wiggins seconded the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Browdy
stated the following actions were recommended for approval by the POC:
The recommendation for two accreditor applications:
Robert Cochel, Florida Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning/Individual Contractor
Commissioner
D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Accreditor John Farinelli, JC Code and Construction Consultants,
Inc
Commissioner
D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Browdy stated the following three courses
under the Accredited Pending FBC approval are now recommended for approval:
SREF Advanced Continuing Edcuation Course, BCIS 201
Commissioner
D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner seconded the
motion. Vote to accept to approve the
motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner
Hamrick disclosed conflict of interest and abstained from voting.
Vote
to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
2004 Advanced Fl Accessibility for Building
Construction, BCIS 200
Commissioner
D ’Andrea moved approval. Commissioner
Greiner seconded the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Advanced
FBC Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 7, BCIS 203
Commissioner
D’Andrea moved approval. Commissioner
Greiner seconded the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Browdy continued stating the next courses
were recommended for update approval
Consent agenda course recommended for update approval:
Accessibility Code Classroom Revised 64.1
Accessibility Internet Revised 65.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 69.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building/Structural Summary 196.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 153.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 119.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 118.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 168.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 84.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Update 100.1
2006 FBC Advanced Building Structural Summary 78.1
2006 FBC Advanced Building Structural Summary 79.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 132.1
Advanced 2004 FBC Building Structural Summary 190.1
Advanced Code Module 144.1
Advanced FBC Course 129.1
Revised Advanced 2004 FBC Building Summary 161.1
Advanced Building Structural Course 150.1
Existing FBC Advanced Code Module 91.1
Indoor Environmental Quality FBC Advanced Module 137.1
Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval consent agenda. Commissioner Greiner seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner
Vann moved approval approve report.
Commissioner D’Andrea seconded the motion.
Commissioner Norkunas noted item #5 discussed relevant
issues that emanated from a conference call among members of the building code
education and outreach council. He
stated it appears looking at that the Construction Industry Licensing Board,
the Electrical Contractor’s Board, the Board of Landscape Architecture, Board
of Professional Engineers, and Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board
had specific recommendations. He further
stated he sits on this outreach council, and while he does not have a Board he
represents 3.2 million Floridians with disabilities. He stressed he participated in the conference
calls and has very strong views about education and specific education
requirements to be established within the state. He requested his comments be placed in
Section 5 as he was a member of that call and had strong opinions on the
issues.
Commissioner Browdy responded stating he would amend his
report to include Commissioner Norkunas’ request.
Commissioner Norkunas expressed appreciation stating he
preferred to have written record of the call.
Vote
to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Product Approval
POC
Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product
Approval POC. (See Product Approval POC Meeting Minutes December 4, 2006)
Commissioner
D’Andrea moved approval of the POC report.
Commissioner Wiggins seconded the motion. Vote to accept the report was unanimous.
Motion carried.
Ad Hoc Committee
on Organization and Processes
Chairman Rodriguez stated during the October 2006
Commission meeting the following Commissioners were appointed to serve on an Ad
Hoc Review Committee to review organization and process issues including
considering alternate members: Commissioners Browdy, D’Andrea, Kim, Greiner,
Wiggins and he as Chairman. He stated
the committee met December 4, 2006, and submitted recommendations for the Commission’s
consideration. Chairman Rodriguez then
directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for an overview of the recommendations.
Mr. Blair conducted a review of the committee’s
recommendations. (See Work Group Recommendations 2006.) He then called for a motion to approve the
package of recommendations.
Commissioner
Wiggins moved approval. Commissioner
Goodloe seconded the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Mr. Blair called for a motion to adopt policy for
alternate members to participate in the work group.
Commissioner
Wiggins moved approval. Commissioner
Goodloe seconded the motion.
Mr. Madani interjected stating rather than using the
facilitator as the point of contact, who may not be available, it can be
deferred to members of the staff.
Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Amendment Process Review Work Group
Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission adopted the Code
amendment process Phase I recommendations regarding the 2007 Code update,
scheduled for the May 6, 2006, meeting, with Phase II recommendations during
the August 2006 meeting. He further
stated the workgroup met Monday to consider Phase III, education and training,
ICC code updates, and Florida specific amendments to the FBC update and also
Code formatting issues.
Mr. Blair conducted an overview of the Phase III
recommendations of the work group. (See Code Work Group
Recommendations)
Commissioner
Browdy moved approval to accept the recommendations. Commissioner Greiner seconded the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE 2007 LEGISLATURE
Chairman Rodriguez reported that the Commission had reviewed
and approved a Draft Report of recommendations and issues for inclusion in the
Commission’s 2007 Report to the Legislature during the October 2006 Commission
meeting. He stated the Final Report will have the Commission’s recommendations
related to Legislative assignments as well as Commission initiatives. He explained
the plan is first for the Chair to review and approve the final draft of the
Report to the 2007 Legislature, ensuring completeness and accuracy, then
approve the Report for submittal to the Legislature. He explained that the
Commission will review and adopt the Summary of Issues and Recommendations for
Inclusion in the 2007 Report to the Legislature, with the understanding that
the actual Report will be updated with the Commission’s final decisions, and
subsequent approval by the Chair, prior to submittal to the 2007 Florida
Legislature.
Mr. Blair conducted a review of the summary of issues for
inclusion in the report. (See Florida Building Commission, Facilitator’s
Summary of Issues for Inclusion in the 2007 Report to the Florida Legislature,
December 2006)
Commissioner Bassett stated during the last Commission
meeting the Education POC requested the Commission submit to the Legislature an
ADA education requirement for all license holders. He further stated he does not see that
request anywhere in the report to the Legislature and it would seem a good
point to discuss. He added, although the
minutes do not reflect, he believed it was voted on it.
Commissioner Browdy added in his POC report he indicated
two main points 1) The need for accessibility training; and 2) The single
source responsibility for oversight of education. He referenced the October Education POC
minutes stating a motion was made by Commissioner Bassett and seconded by John Hamrick. The actual motion was to request the Florida
Building Commission include in its report to the Legislature what the Education
POC perceives to be needed education regarding ADA and accessibility issues;
this motion was passed.
Mr. Blair offered clarification stating the need for
education in ADA accessibility issues is something that could be reported to
the Legislature, but would not have to be included as a recommendation. He continued stating if the Education POC
wants to require all licensees to take an accessibility course, that has to have
a different motion and would need to be included in the Legislature report.
Commissioner Bassett addressed the issue indicating he
believed the requirement for all licensees to take the course should be
included in the report as a solution for the need expressed by Commissioner
Browdy. He then moved approval as
stated. Commissioner Wiggins offered a
second to the motion.
Mr. Blair restated the motion as “The Commission
recommends to the Legislature that all licensee categories will be required to
take an ADA or accessibility course.”
Commissioner D’Andrea requested clarification concerning
which licensees would be required.
Mr. Richmond stated the governor’s office would likely
mandate the Commission go to DBPR to resolve this issue, as his office in
general has not been happy having arguments among executive agencies. He further stated licensing requirements are
in their jurisdiction in their substantive statutes.
Mr. Blair further clarified the issue stating as Mr.
Richmond indicated, this may not be the way to implement a solution. He stated the Commission might want to make a
recommendation that there be a negotiation and discussion with DBPR regarding
the need for this education.
Commissioner Bassett agreed to change his motion to reflect
Mr. Blair’s recommendation. Commissioner
Wiggins seconded the motion.
Chairman Rodriguez asked if this would be included in the
Legislature report.
Commissioner Basset stated he would like this to be
included in the report that we are pursuing the issue with other agencies.
Mr. Blair then restated the motion as amended to
state: This is not a statutory
change. The Commission will report to
the Legislature indicating there is a strong need for education training
regarding the ADA provisions of the Florida Building Code; the Commission will
work with the appropriate agencies including DBPR to determine an acceptable
way to implement this recommendation.
Commissioner Norkunas suggested the need for a specific
course generated for the building officials, more so than the design
professionals. He stated he has spoken
to some building officials regarding this and none have seemed very happy about
being drawn down a specific path.
Commissioner Greiner requested ADA be removed from the
language.
Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Mr. Blair then called for a separate motion to approve
the issues that will require statutory change.
Commissioner
Greiner moved approval. Commissioner
Wiggins seconded the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Kim referenced page 2 of the summary stating
and suggested additional language to only allow certification method for
products that have no test standards.
Commissioner Bassett asked for clarification that if a
product has no standard, it cannot be certified.
Mr. Dixon provided clarification stating the
certification method can only be used where an approved Certification Agency
certifies compliance to a standard that includes a test evaluation. He explained the potential confusion is that
the engineer’s sign and seal is referred to in the rules as a
certification. He reiterated the
importance of being clear that a certification method can only be used where
there is an adopted standard in the Code.
Chairman
Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
.
Mr. Blair continued his review of the summary of issues.
Mr. Blair called for a motion to accept the
report and adopt the recommendations for submittal to the Legislature as
amended, and to charge the Commission’s Chair
with the review and approval of the
final report prior to submittal to the 2007 Legislature.
Commissioner
Mc Combs moved approval. Commissioner
Carson seconded the motion.
Commissioner Wiggins stated there was an item in the
Proposed Insurance Reform Committee Legislation that indicates the Commission
shall develop the standards for a voluntary Code Plus building code by
July. He expressed concern relative to a
time frame issue if the item is decided on during the February meeting, giving
the Commission only one month to complete that task.
Mr. Richmond responded stating the
issue is scheduled for special session.
He further stated the unrealistic time frame has been recognized. He explained the best approach would be to
have a conference call scheduled in advance of the special session to discuss
the issues that are actually raised in the special session.
Commissioner
Norkunas referenced pages 13, 14, and 15 stating the education system was very
well written and he is in agreement with the building code education
recommendations. He asked through the
Chair and the Commission if at some point a test could be developed for
accessibility, particularly for permitting officials.
Chairman Rodriguez asked for clarification concerning
whether the building officials are the group for Commissioner Norkunas’ focus.
Commissioner Norkunas responded that was correct.
Chairman Rodriguez suggested the Education POC would be
the best direction to go.
Commissioner Bassett stated he wanted to make sure the
approval motion includes what the Commission just discussed relative to the
Education requirements through the Legislation.
Commissioner Browdy responded stating the requirements
for licensing building officials is typically governed by boards. He stated he had given his building officials
tests, but they hold no weight. He
further stated the best way to get these requirements is through the statutory
process, or legislative process, by going through DBPR. He explained for years there have been
efforts to establish requirements for building officials and it has only resulted
in ill will when the Commission tries to impose its standards on these licensed
professionals who are governed by individual licensing boards.
Chairman Rodriquez stated it was discussed earlier any
action of that focus should be addressed through DBPR.
Mr. Blair stated the issue can be included in the process
described earlier in which an effort to negotiate with the different agencies
would be appropriate.
Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion. Vote to accept the report and adopt the
recommendations for submittal to the Legislature as amended was unanimous. Motion carried.
REVIEW AND
UPDATE COMMISSION WORKPLAN
Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission
workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan December 06)
Mr. Dixon noted the discussion of a conference call
concerning special Legislative session stating the meeting will take place
beginning January 16, 2007. He proposed
a conference call January 11, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.
Commissioner Wiggins moved approval for the conference
call as proposed. Commissioner Carson
offered a second to the motion.
Commissioner Carson referenced page 9 with respect to the
January 24 meeting of the workplan requesting clarification as to whether the
actual POC would be reviewing the issue or the workgroup.
Mr. Dixon responded stating it would be the POC.
Commissioner Carson stated he may have misinformed the
POC members by stating the workgroup would be reviewing the issue.
Mr. Blair stated he would send an email to the Product
Approval Validation Workgroup to make the correction.
Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion passed.
Commissioner Bassett stressed dates and times for TAC
meetings in St. Augustine be established as soon as possible in order to
establish quorums in those meetings.
Commissioner Gonzalez entered a motion to approve the
updated workplan as outlined by Mr. Dixon.
Commissioner Goodloe seconded the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
STATUS REPORT ON FLORIDA BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER’S PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING DESIGN OF ALUMINUM STRUCTURES
Commissioner
Kim offered a review of the discussion stating
on November 14, 2006, he attended the last meeting of the Florida Board of
Professional Engineers task group on aluminum structures. He stated at the conclusion of the meeting
the task group made a recommendation on a set of rules to recommend to the full
board for adoption this week. He noted
the new rule governing the design of aluminum structures require site specific
engineering. He indicated he had
provided to staff a copy of the recommended rule. He explained if the full board adopted the
rule this week it would go into rulemaking process. In closing, Commissioner Kim stated the action
the Board is taking has no impact on the Deemed to Comply documents the Florida
Building Code has adopted.
COMMISSION
MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES
Commissioner Wiggins offered a recommendation stating
when there is a controversial issue and the TAC dealing with that issue has no
recommendation, a policy be established to send it back to the TAC at least one
time to allow these entities an opportunity for comment with the TAC and
develop a recommendation from the TAC before it comes back to the Commission. He added if the Commission could legally
follow a policy as stated, it may prevent drawn out discussions at the
Commission meetings with people who may know all the technical details, the
past, and the intent of the Code.
Mr. Richmond responded expressing the difficulty in
dealing with the time frame for issuing declaratory statements. He stated it is an extremely limited
circumstance. He offered to take the
matter into review then suggested procedurally it could be accomplished if the
TAC could not agree on a substantive outcome but could agree it needed more
time. Mr. Richmond then requested the
additional time from the Commission for the next scheduled meeting stating the
Commission could decide on such matters on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Wiggins concurred stating wherever it would
meet the legal time frame, the Commission should follow methodology so that
could be accomplished in order to provide the bodies that have deliberated on
the issues the opportunity to address the Commission on issues where the TAC is
split.
Commissioner Greiner added the issues should be dealt
with at the TAC level and should the TAC feel they need more time, they should
make that decision, as Mr. Richmond suggested.
He further stated the Commission also has the power to send those issues
back to the TAC as well, as evidenced in past circumstances.
Chairman Rodriguez asked if the interested parties
attended the TAC meeting or if they just came before the Commission.
Commissioner Wiggins responded stating when there is a
split within the TAC and parties may have not been at every meeting, they would
have an opportunity to be heard within the legal time frame.
Chairman Rodriguez stated the ideal situation would be
for both those entities to appear before the TAC so if the TAC was not able to
deal with it, it would come to the Commission.
He agreed ideally the majority of the discussion should take place
during the TAC meeting the stated if there is no consensus, a discussion before
the Commission would take place.
Commissioner McCombs expressed appreciation to Mr. Blair
for the job he does as facilitator as well as staff for their work and
availability when needed.
Commissioner Greiner concurred.
Commissioner Bassett wished all the Commission members,
staff, and members of the public a happy holiday season and a happy new year.
GENERAL PUBLIC
COMMENT
Joe Belcher,
JDB Code Services
Mr. Belcher offered comment stating he was initially an
opponent of having a facilitator for the Commission meetings and he now
recognizes the tremendous need for the facilitator and the fine work he
does. He then reported to the Commission
he had received word from Bob Boyd that Dennis Grimm had been hospitalized and
had a surgery of some nature. He
mentioned it since the Commission was waiting to hear from him. He continued stating the Florida Board of
Professional Engineers will be organizing another task group to address some of
the other problems in the aluminum industry relative to manuals that have been produced
by engineers and are in use by contractors who purchase a membership to use the
manuals.
Commissioner Kim responded stating the new task group is
on master plans and it will include the manuals Mr. Belcher has mentioned. He then mentioned he had received an email
from Dennis Grimm stating he would not be attending the meeting.
Mr. Belcher added as Commissioner Kim mentioned on the
prescriptive document for aluminum construction in high wind areas, they would
be submitting a total revision of the guide to the Commission as a code
change. He explained the AAF is very
aware of the problems that have occurred in the industry and have held many
meetings over the last year-and-a-half identifying many of the areas that will
be addressed in that revision.
ADJOURN
Chairman Rodriguez adjourned the Florida Building
Commission meeting at 11:16 a.m.
