April 6 & 7, 2010
Hilton Hotel
First Hearing- Legal
Report:
DCA09-DEC-411 by Manny Sanchez of Fenestration
Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Question #1: We need clarification from the committee of the intent of this section. Our interpretation is that window manufacturer is to test three samples in size, configuration and glazing?
Answer: Yes. According to Section 1714.6 a minimum of three specimens/samples must be tested for the product in question.
Question #2: As the testing laboratory agency for the State are we correct in making such determination as to what was tested is ample or not and is in compliance.
Answer: Yes. According to Rule 9B-72.010, it is the responsibility of the approved test lab to test a product in accordance with the applicable testing standards referenced in the Code including any specific modification by the Code to such standard.
DCA10-DEC-002
by Derrek Runion of GreenBuilt, Inc.
Question #1: When we design and engineer a system for a custom home or commercial building for a client, and the system is designed consistent with FBC Section 2210. The purpose and use of our system in this capacity would constitute an exception to the Florida Product Approval rule and requirements, as stated in 9B-72-030 exceptions to the rule. Is this correct? If not, please explain why?
(Note: code reference was changed to FBC)
Answer: To the extent that the Petitioner’s pre-engineered system is constructed specific to plan or design “custom /one of a kind” and designed in accordance with specification standards referenced in the FBC, the system itself falls outside the scope of the optional state approval established by Rule 9B-72. However, local approval of the Petitioner’s system may be achieved through building plans review and inspection providing the system is manufactured under quality assurance procedures as specified in the Code.
Question #2: When we design and engineer a system for the roof of a custom home or commercial building for a client and the system is designed consistent with FBC Section 2210. The purpose and use of our system in this capacity would constitute an exception to the Florida Product Approval rules and requirements, as stated in 9B-72-030 exceptions to the rule. Is this correct? If not, please explain why?
Answer: See answer to Question #1.
Question #3: If we design a wall section that is not sold as part of a pre-engineered custom whole building, but rather intended for use in a custom design or addition, and it is manufactured, designed and installed consistent with FBC Section 2210, then the purpose and use of our system in this capacity would constitute an exception to the Florida Product Approval rules and requirements, as stated in 9B-72-030 exceptions to the rule. Is this correct? If not, please explain why?
DCA10-DEC-034 by C.W. (Ben)
Bentley
To the question “Is it the intent of 2007 Florida Building Code [Residential] to allow installation of a PRV [pressure relief] valve in the “solar loop” portion of an active direct solar water heating system?”, the answer is YES, as long as the installation is in accordance with the system’s listing/certification and the manufacturer’s installation instructions and there is a temperature and pressure valve provided at the storage tank to protect the system.
DCA10DEC-038
by RAy Habic
of Gillette Generators
Action: TAC accepted staff recommendation of deferral until petitioner could provide additional information for clarification.
DCA10-DEC-045 by George Merlin
of George Merlin Associates Inc. Withdrawn
Action - Structural TAC:
Question #1: Is
the exception in FBC 3109.1.1 applicable to all the preceeding
items 1.,2., and 3., and therefore the proposed substantial improvement work
described in Case #1 exempt from CCCL design standards because it’s to be built
over and within the limits of an existing unmodified foundation? Yes or No?
Answer: “No”, exception dos not apply to substantial improvements or additions.
Question # 2: Is the proposed work described in Case #2 exempt from CCCL design standards if the extent of the horizontal addition doesn’t advance farther than the seaward limits of the existing building and if the cost of the horizontal addition portion only does not constitute a substantial improvement to the existing structure (i.e. only the horizontal addition portion outside the limits of the existing foundation must be limited to cost less than 50% of the market value of the original existing structure , since the vertical addition over and within the limits of the existing unmodified foundation is exempt from cost consideration because it is already considered an exempt substantial improvement )? Yes or No?
Answer: “No”, level of work noted for the project in question.
Action- Special Occupancy TAC:
Question #1:
Is the exception in FBC
3109.1.1 applicable to all the preceeding items
1.,2., and 3., and therefore the proposed substantial improvement work
described in Case #1 exempt from CCCL design standards because it’s to be built
over and within the limits of an existing unmodified foundation? Yes or No?
Answer:
Yes. According to Section 3109.1.1 Exception,
the project as described in Case #1 above is not required to be
re-designed to resist the predicted forces associated with a 100-year storm
event.
Question # 2:
Is the proposed work described in Case #2 exempt from CCCL design standards if the extent of the horizontal addition doesn’t advance farther than the seaward limits of the existing building and if the cost of the horizontal addition portion only does not constitute a substantial improvement to the existing structure (i.e. only the horizontal addition portion outside the limits of the existing foundation must be limited to cost less than 50% of the market value of the original existing structure , since the vertical addition over and within the limits of the existing unmodified foundation is exempt from cost consideration because it is already considered an exempt substantial improvement )? Yes or No?
Answer/Option #2:
No, level of work noted for the project in question does constitute
rebuilding
Consider other Legal
Issues
Request
for Relief from Energy Code Compliance Method - by Heath Baxa
of M-E Engineers, Inc.
To the
petitioner’s request, that the Florida Marlins Ballpark in Miami, Florida,
be granted Special Use status as allowed by Section 13-101.1.5 of the Florida
Building Code, Building, and that an adjustment of the code’s 15% energy code
savings be calculated using a hybrid method for calculating the Ballpark’s
energy usage, the
answer is that the
Commission should allow determination of code compliance by Petitioner’s proposed
methodology if the Annual Whole Building Energy Cost Savings is changed to 15
percent and Chapter 11 of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 is utilized instead of Appendix G.
Spaces to be used all the time shall be brought into code compliance by EnergyGauge Summit Fla/Com, while
the ballpark bowl may be brought into compliance through use of the E Quest
computer program.