Roofing Technical Advisory Committee 

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Conference Call


10:00 A.M. –

Telephone Number:  1-888-808-6959   Code: 9221867

Department of Community Affairs
Sadowski Building, Room 250L
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100


Meeting Objectives were:

  • To Review/Approve the agenda and minutes from the October meeting
  • To Consider Declaratory Statements
  • To Consider issues from the public and Committee

1.      TAC reviewed/approved agenda and January 27 minutes as amended removing Herminio Gonzalez from attendees of January 27 meeting.

Attendees:   Chris Schulte; Chairman,

Billy Cone, Charles Goldsmith, Jimmy Buckner, Jon Hamrick, Kenneth Everett, Lorraine Ross, Karen Warseck, and Bob Boyer were present.  DCA staff present were Mo Madani, Rick Dixon, Jim Richmond and Joe Bigelow.  Jeff Blair facilitated the meeting.

2.      Reviewed and provided recommendations to the Commission on the request for declaratory statements:


Question 1:  Is a 0.131 diameter nail, minimum 2.25” long, acceptable as an existing nail in lieu of the above referenced .141 diameters when re-nailing roof decks as per the 2007 FBC, Existing Building Volume, section 611.7.1 and associated sections.

Answer:  Yes. It appears that there is an internal conflict within Section 611.7.1 with regard to the specifications for an 8d nails.  According to the National Design Specification for Wood Construction “NDS”, which is adopted by reference in the FBC, Building Volume “See Table L4 above”, the minimum diameter for an 8d common nail is (.131”).  There is no technical basis or justification available from the national standard of practice for the (.141”) specification.  Therefore, it is evident that the diameter for a standard 8d Common nail is “.131 inch” and not “.141 inch”.


Question 2:  Is .141 a typographical error?

Answer:  See above.



Question 1: Does a home requiring roof to wall improvements as per 611.8, with both gable and hip configurations, and a confirmed cost to improve both gable ends and hip corners that would exceed 15% of the re-roof cost be required to improve only the portion that would apply as per 611.8.1.7?


Answer:  Understanding that one of the improvements “gable ends or hip corners” can be improved at a cost not to exceed 15% of the re-roof cost, the answer is as follows:


Yes.  Improvement is subject to the criteria of Section 611.8.1.7.


Question 2:  If the answer to question 1 is yes, then it would seem that 611.8.1.7 enforces partial improvements (up to 15% of the cost of the re-roof) in lieu of all improvements that was previously listed in 611.8© that was stricken at the time of the glitch review and approve process and is not consistent with the approved language submitted by the wind mitigation workgroup.  Question:  Does section 611.8.1, exception 2 supersede section 611.8(b) and void 611.8.1.7 when a home has both gable ends and hip corners that require improvements?


Answer:  No. With regard to the project in question all sections “611.8.1, Exception 2, 611.8(b) and 611.8.1.7” would apply.


Question 3 (note question was revised at the meeting as noted):  If the answer to question 2 is no On a home that has both gable and hips, and as per section 611.8.1.7, and the gables are priority (or vice-versa) and can be improved with in budget of 15% of the re-roof cost, but all of the hip corners cannot be improved with in the same budget (15% of the reroof cost) does any all the hip corners still need to be improved?


Answer:   No, if the residual funds are not sufficient to complete the mitigation/repairs of all hip corners then none are required. 


3.         Public Comment

4.                  Member Comment

5.                  Adjourned at 11:15