MyFloridaCode.com

Dennis, a thousand thanks. Now I see the origin of the language in the code
and the rationale behind it. It's clear the EBC is derived from the HUD
NARRP. Some of the language is copied word for word. Having spent much time
studying this, (and believe me, I have a reason for doing so,) I can safely
say the following:


On an existing building, you can do one of the following:

1. Repair
2. Alteration (3 levels)
3. Addition
4. Change occupancy

Addition is self explanatory. " An extension or increase in floor area,
number of stories, or height of a building or structure."
New work has to comply with today's code. You are limited by flood zone
requirements and you can't create or extend an non conformity in the
existing building re accessibility, structural strength, egress, fire
safety, etc.


Change of Occupancy is self explanatory.



Repairs are defined as "The patching, restoration and/or minor replacement
of materials, elements, components, equipment and/or fixtures for the
purposes of maintaining such materials, elements, components, equipment
and/or fixtures in good or sound condition."


Alterations are defined as "Any construction or renovation to an existing
structure other than repair or addition. Alterations are classified as Level
1, Level 2, and Level 3."
 

If it's not a repair or addition, it's an alteration.  Again, repair is
clearly defined as MINOR REPLACEMENT FOR MAINTAINING IN GOOD CONDITION, not
wholesale remodeling.

Level 1 includes removal and replacement of existing stuff. 
Level 2 includes reconfiguration of space, addition or elimination of any
door or window, installation of additional equipment, and reconfiguration or
extension of any system.
Level 3 applies where the work area exceeds 50% of the area within 12
months.


Generally, in level 1 & 2, new work has to comply with today's code. (I'm
omitting details here.) 

In level 3, you're required to have an architect or engineer evaluate the
structural adequacy and demonstrate that the altered building complies with
current wind loading requirements.




Mark Cramer 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Stanley [mailto:tstanley at i-1.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:57 PM
To: Mark Cramer; codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] work area for fire damaged SFR

Here is a little history of existing building codes.  I do not know if it 
will aid in the discussion or not.

http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/narrp/toc_narrp.html

http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/smartcodes.html


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Cramer" <mcramer1 at tampabay.rr.com>
To: <codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] work area for fire damaged SFR


I agree with the reasoning, but is that what the code says?

How about if the house is in a flood zone? Do we now throw perfect reasoning
out the window?

Mark Cramer

-----Original Message-----
From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
[mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of Bob Koning
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:33 PM
To: Don Meyer; Eric Kuritzky
Cc: codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] work area for fire damaged SFR

This is perfect reasoning. I am impressed. Thank You.


R.J.Koning - Director
Contractors Institute
rjkoning at contractorsinstitute.com
8301 Joliet Street
Hudson, Fl 34667
727-863-5147




-----Original Message-----
From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
[mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of Don Meyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:26 PM
To: Eric Kuritzky
Cc: codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] work area for fire damaged SFR

An alteration is a decision you make to change your building.

A fire is not a decision, it is an unfortunate event or accident.

If the house had never burned, the owner would not be in the building
department getting a permit to replace trusses.
Without a fire, the house could last another sixty years and no one
would have a problem.  Since it did have a fire and if it is repaired
with original material and lasted sixty years you get the same results.

It is not making the house any less safe than it would have been before
the fire.  On that basis it could be classified a repair.

However, if I am spending money to fix my house I would want it to be
compliant and with the efficiencies of the current building codes.

Don Meyer, Architect
Coral Springs, FL


Eric Kuritzky wrote:
> If the roof has to be completely replaced, and I'm guessing most of
the
> interior walls, HVAC, electric and plumbing...then this wasn't a
simple
> 'damaged' building.
>
> Everyone seems to be trying to avoid the hard decision here, which is
that
> all the new work, which is just about everything, should be brought up
to
> existing code.
>
> Hell, we demand more code compliance from minor changes of tenant use,
a
> simple house addition, or simply installing new windows (which, if I
recall,
> must all bear product approval information and installation
compliance).
> Look at the requirements for installing a re-roof...it exceeds the
original
> roof requirements.
>
> If this house was sixty years old and had fabric covered electrical
wires,
> would you allow them to replace the electric similarly?  With fuses
instead
> of circuit breakers?
>
> Repairing damage would be to me 'localized' damage, not the whole
blasted
> roof.  Maybe part of the roof, or just the kitchen, but not
everything.
>
> If the HVAC needs to be replaced, would you permit an SEER of less
than 10,
> which might have been high when the home was built, if it had a SEER
rating
> at all.  Would you allow less insulation than the code now requires,
say,
> R-6 in the attic and nothing in the walls?
>
> Do you realize the precedent this can set?
>
> Eric D. Kuritzky, Architect, CBO
> Orlando
>
>
>
>
> On 11/5/08 4:53 PM, "Bob Koning" <Bob at ContractorsInstitute.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree Christopher, but if understand this situation the building
was
>> "damaged" by a fire.
>>
>>
>> R.J.Koning - Director
>> Contractors Institute
>> rjkoning at contractorsinstitute.com
>> 8301 Joliet Street
>> Hudson, Fl 34667
>> 727-863-5147
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
>> [mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of Christopher
>> Banbury
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:16 PM
>> To: codetalk at myfloridacode.com
>> Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] work area for fire damaged SFR
>>
>> I understand that BOs are routinely pressed right to the bleeding
edge
>> of code application. I can just see somebody coming in for a permit
>> whose house has been completely blown away by a tornado, foundation
and
>> all, and asking to build the same house back as a repair. What could
you
>> say? They say they want to build the same house back again.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, neither the intuitive nor the code definition of
'repair'
>> covers a scenario where entire systems are missing so that their
>> original configuration cannot be deduced. Repair speaks more toward
>> replacement of damaged elements. At some point the BO has to make a
>> decision as to whether there is enough of the damaged structure
>> remaining to determine what the pre-existing condition actually was.
If
>> an entire roof system and walls are missing and the applicant cannot
>> demonstrate what was there previously by photos or plans then calling
it
>> a repair is just an invitation for wholesale alteration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christopher Banbury, PE
>>
>> President
>>
>>
>>
>> Ark Engineering, Inc.
>>
>> PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603
>>
>> 22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601
>>
>> Phone: (352) 754-2424
>>
>> Fax: (352) 754-2412
>>
>> www.arkengineering.net <http://www.arkengineering.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
<http://download.autodesk.com/esd/designreview/SetupDesignReview2009.exe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20081105/0b6b276
>> 0/attachment.html
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: not available
>> Type: image/gif
>> Size: 3015 bytes
>> Desc: image001.gif
>> Url :
>>
http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20081105/0b6b276
>> 0/attachment.gif
>> _______________________________________________
>> CodeTalk mailing list
>> CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at:
>> http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CodeTalk mailing list
>> CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at:
>> http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>>
>
>
> Eric D. Kuritzky, Architect, CBO
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CodeTalk mailing list
> CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at:
> http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
CodeTalk mailing list
CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk

_______________________________________________
CodeTalk mailing list
CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk

_______________________________________________
CodeTalk mailing list
CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk