1. DCA08-DEC-207
by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire Marshall/Building Official, City of Altamonte
Springs (December 2008)
Question
1: Does the rule apply only to new construction
of a new building, or does it also apply to additions or alterations as defined
in the FEBC?
Answer: The rule
applies to all buildings for which a permit for new construction is
issued. In this case, it would apply to
construction of new buildings, additions and level 3 but not level 1
or 2 alterations as defined in the
Question 2: If the rule
applies to additions, does an addition require the complete existing structure
to comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired
and battery back up)
For example: If an attached
garage or a screen enclosure is added to an existing home, are CO detectors
required to be installing within the complete existing structure?
Answer: No, unless
the addition meets the requirements for the Rule 9B-3.0472.
Question 3. If the rule
applies to all alterations, does it require the complete existing structure to
comply with installing CO detectors as prescribed in the rule? (hardwired and
battery back up)
Example #1: If a new gas
furnace is installed in an existing home, whereas it was electric before, are
CO detectors required to be installing within the complete existing
structure?
Example #2: If any type of
permit is issued on the existing structure are CO detectors required to be
installing within the complete existing structure?
Answer: No, it does
not apply to all alterations, however it does apply to level 3 alterations.
Question 4. If the answer is yes to the questions 2 or 3
above, must hardwired CO detectors be installed with a battery backup?
Answer: No, if the
addition requires a CO detector in the existing building it may be battery
powered.
Question 5. Does the
rule apply to repairs, as defined by the FEBC?
Answer: NO.
Question 6. Does the
rule apply to a change in occupancy, as defined by the FEBC?
Answer: YES, if the change of occupancy
meets the requirements or intent of Rule 9B-3.0472.
For the
February meeting the petitioner has requested the following :The petitioner
requested that the response time of Chapter 120 Procedure for this Declaratory
Statement be extended until June 1st 2009, with the understanding
that the extension will not result in the dismissal of the Declaratory
Statement.
2. DCA08-DEC-344
by Alvin Scolnik, National Electrical
Manufacturer's Association
Withdrawn at request
of petitioner
3. DCA08-DEC-345 by James Reed, Southwest
Progressive Enterprises, Inc
Dismissed, as no further information has been provided by the applicant to correctly determine the products structural properties.
4. DCA09-DEC-009 by Thomas H Ford of Bhamani, Ford
Question #1: Floor area of warehouse space for a retail store is 1250 SF x .04 = 50 SF. An over head door is 10’ x 16’ = 160 SF, therefore no mechanical ventilation to bring outside air to the storage area is required, or no additional louvers in the exterior wall are required because 50 SF is less than 160 SF.
Does this comply with the intent of section 402.2 Ventilation Area Required?
Answer: Yes. The size of the openable area “160 SF” to the outdoors does comply with the intent of Section 402.2 of the FBC, Mechanical.
Question #2: If there are no windows or doors to the outside then mechanical ventilation of 62.5 CFM minimum would be required for this un-air conditioned space: 1250 SF x 0.05 CFM/SF = 62.5 CFM.
Does this comply with the intent of Table 403.3 Required Outdoor Ventilation Air?
Answer: Yes. Mechanical ventilation of “62.5 CFM” does comply with the intent of Table 403.3 of the FBC, Mechanical for a 1250 square foot warehouse.
5. DCA09-DEC-025
by Brad
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 are no technical bases 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.
6. DCA09-DEC-045
by Brad
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: 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.
7. DCA09-DEC-051
by David Hodges, Fine Tooth Comb Investigations
Withdrawn at request
of petitioner
8. DCA09-DEC-053 by
Question #1: Does this section of the Code apply to commercial applications, residential applications or both?
Answer: As per 553.844(3), Florida Statutes, the application of Section 105.15 of the FBC, Building is limited to site-built, detached single-family residential structures.
Question #2: Assuming this home was constructed under the 2001 FBC and designed for a higher internal pressure is it still required to provide wind borne protection?
Answer:
No. As per Section
553.844(1), it is the intent of the law to address construction undertaken
prior to the implementation of the Florida Building Code. Previous editions of the FBC (2001 and 2004
without the 2007 Supplement) did allow the partially enclosed option as a mean
of protection.
9. DCA09-DEC-055 by David Hodges, Fine Tooth
Comb Investigations
Withdrawn at request
of petitioner
10. DCA09-DEC-056 by David Hodges, Fine Tooth Comb Investigations
Withdrawn at request
of petitioner
11. DCA09-DEC-062
by Dan Arlington,
Question #1: Is it the intent of the new FBC Section 105.15 that it applies to only site-built single family residential structures, or all buildings?
Question #2: Is it the intent of the new FBC Section 105.15 to require
opening protections for buildings built before July 1, 20078
using partially enclosed engineering as an alternative to opening
protections?
The
committee voted to consolidate both DCA09-DEC-053 and DCA09-DEC-062, with the
answer to the questions from DCA09-DEC-053.