Legal Report
May 9, 2007
Issue: DCA07 DEC-017 . The petitioner seeks clarification relative to one of their projects and have appended the drawings, to determine whether section 1519.16 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) is applicable to balconies and parking garages decks when such balconies and decks are not part of the top surface of a building and are not the weather-exposed surface immediately above habitable space.
Question - Does section 1519.16 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) apply to balconies or parking garage decks when such balconies and decks are not part of the top surface of a building and are not the weather-exposed surface immediately above habitable space?
Answer. - No, with the exception of the balconies and parking garage decks in question are not part of the building roof assembly and thus section 1519.16 does not apply to this case. However, the project in question is subject to comply with Section 1926.5.5 of the Florida Building Code, Building.
Issue: DCA07 DEC-047. The petitioner seeks clarification as to whether a Professional Engineer is required to prepare design plans for an electrical project at 920 S. Tamiami Trail, Venice Florida . The project will involve adding a 400 amp feeder circuit, and the cost will be $65,000.00. The petitioner also asked if language in the Florida Statutes (471.003) trumps (overrides) language in the Florida Building Code (Section 105.3.1).
Question One - Does the language in the Florida Statutes trump (override) language in the Florida Building Code.?
Answer - Yes.
Question Two - Does the above mentioned project require a Engineer to prepare the plans?
Answer Option One - Yes, the project exceeds $50,000.00.
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-048 . Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on an interpretation of Sections 13-415.1.ABC.1.1 and 13-415.1.ABC.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Building .
• To the question , Am I correct in saying that these buildings, despite being less than 5,000 s.f., shall have occupancy sensors installed to turn off the lighting within 30 minutes of the occupants leaving the various rooms and offices? , the answer is: NO, only classrooms (except shop classrooms, laboratory classrooms and preschool through 12 th grade classrooms), conference/meeting rooms and employee lunch and break rooms have to have a control device installed that automatically turns lighting off within 30 minutes of all occupants leaving a space except spaces with multi-scene control.
• To the question, Does Section 13-415.1.ABC.1.1 only pertain to the rooms exempted from section 13-415.1.ABC.1.2 and larger open storage/warehouse spaces in buildings that are larger than 5,000 s.f.?, the answer is NO, Section 13-415.1.ABC.1.1 applies to all buildings larger than 5,000 s.f. (with exceptions for security lighting).
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-049 by Pennie Hoxie, Poly Vulc USA Inc. The Commission has no authority to address the petitioner's request and recommends dismissal.
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-050. The petitioner, Alfonso Oviedo-Reyes, President, Hunker Down Systems.com , seeks a Declaratory Statement on Rule 9B-72 as it pertains to their product.
To the question , Does the product fall under the scope of Rule 9B-72 .
No, the Product in question is outside the scope of Rule 9B-72.
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-060 by Emil Veksenfeld, PE. Very general, request deferral to the next meeting to allow the petitioner to revise it to make it project specific.
Issue: DCA07 DEC-065 . The petitioner seeks clarification as to whether section 505.1 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building (FBC, EB) allows the installation of emergency egress windows the same size of the existing ones. This is for a home in Boynton Beach , and the new windows in sleeping rooms do not meet the current code requirements relative to minimum size.
Question 1. Does section 505.1 of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building (FBC, EB) allow the installation of emergency egress windows the same size of the existing ones.
Answer - Yes. T he section does not require replacement windows to meet the current code requirements for emergency escape and rescue openings. An emergency escape and rescue opening is only required to meet the requirements for emergency escape and rescue openings in effect when the building was built. Additionally, the section allows a reduction of up to 5% in the size of the opening.
Issue: DCA07 DEC-067 . The petitioner seeks clarification as to whether section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) and section 1609.1.4 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) requires a non-glazed garage door to be wind-borne debris resistant in areas outside the High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ) and whether the wind-borne debris resistant requirements different between residential and non-residential occupancies.
Question 1. Does section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) and section 1609.1.4 of the Florida Building Code (FBC) require a non-glazed garage door to be wind-borne debris resistant?
Answer - No, in areas outside the HVHZ impact resistance to wind-borne debris only applies to glazed openings.
Question 2. Does section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) require wind-borne debris resistance in any area outside the High Velocity Hurricane Zone?
Answer - Yes, but only for glazed openings.
Question 3. Does section R301.2.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential (FBC, R) requirements for wind-borne debris resistant differ between residential and non-residential occupancies?
Answer – No
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-072 by Nelson de Leon, AIA. Withdrawn
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-078. The petitioner, Siegfried W. Valentin, AAMA, SE Region Director, seeks a Declaratory Statement on testing procedures for Statewide Product Approval under Rule 9B-72 F.A.C.
To the question , A. Are there any additional tests required for use in the HVHZ if state wide product approval would be granted for such product?
Answer: If the product in question meets the requirement for the High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ) then it is acceptable for use in the HVHZ .
To the question , B. Are there any additional tests required for use in the HVHZ if state wide product approval would be granted for such product?
Answer: If the product in question meets the requirement for the High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ) then it is acceptable for use in the HVHZ .
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-079 by Keith A. Mahaffey, President, Keith Mahaffey Pools, Inc. Recommend dismissal and defer to the local appeal board for consideration.
ISSUE: DCA07-DEC-080 . Petitioner seeks a Declaratory Statement on an interpretation of Section 607.5.5.1 of the Florida Building Code, Mechanical concerning whether smoke dampers shall be installed under certain conditions in residential high-rise buildings.
To the question, Would the advantages of automatic sprinkler protection be equally applicable to the described group R occupancies, which the 2004 FM Code recognizes for group B occupancies?, the answer is YES, based on NFPA and life safety codes, the advantages of automatic sprinker protection should be equally applicable to group R occupancies. Staff recommends adding “as an acceptable alternate material, design or method of construction and equipment subject to approval of the authority having jurisdiction [building official].
To the question, Would the omission of smoke dampers be acceptable for the described group R occupancies, considering that the 2003 IMC Commentary recognizes that “smoke dampers in steel exhaust sub-ducts extended at least 22 inches vertically in the exhaust shafts would not significantly increase safety to the building occupants” when there is a continuous upward outflow to the outside? the answer is YES, based on NFPA, life safety codes and the 2006 International Mechanical Code the omission of smoke dampers should be acceptable for group R occupancies. Staff recommends adding “as an acceptable alternate material, design or method of construction and equipment for the described group R occupancies subject to approval of the authority having jurisdiction [building official].
To the question, Would the omission of smoke dampers be acceptable for the described group R occupancies, considering that for smoke barriers NFPA 90-A, 2002 ed., recognizes the following exceptions, which are applicable in these instances?
• #5.3.5.1.3 Smoke dampers shall not be required where the air inlet or outlet openings in ducts are limited to a single smoke compartment.
• #5.3.5.1.4 Smoke dampers shall not be required in ducts where the air continues to move and the air-handling system installed is arranged to prevent recirculation of exhaust or return air under fire emergency conditions,
1. The answer is YES, the omission of smoke dampers per NFPA 90-A should be an acceptable alternate material, design or method of construction and equipment for the described group R occupancies. Staff recommends adding “subject to approval of the authority having jurisdiction [building official].
• To the question, would such smoke dampers, as required, lead to decreased life safety considering their serviceability and maintainability in practical reality? Typically, such smoke dampers would be located above hard ceilings, in congested areas where accessibility is limited or, at times, non-existent, the answer is that it is beyond the scope of this Declaratory Statement.