Loading...
Minutes 11-10-05 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Milton Russell, Chair Michael Bessell, Vice Chair Richard Kurtz Sanford Guritzky Frank Lindsay Tim Large, Deputy Building Official Jim Cherof, City Attorney Absent: Beverly Agee Brita Peterson, Alternate Robert Bonagura, Alternate A. Call to Order - Milton Russell, Chairman Chairman Russell called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. B. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors Chairman Russell acknowledged the visitors and asked the Recording Secretary to call the roiL The roll was called and a quorum was declared present. Chairman Russell welcomed Tim Large, Deputy Building Official, City Attorney Cherof and the applicant, Jose Obeso. C. Approval of Agenda & Meeting Minutes of September 29, 2005 Meeting Motion Mr. Kurtz moved to accept the minutes of the September 29, 2005 meeting. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Bessell and unanimously carried. D. Old Business None Attorney Cherof administered the oath to all persons that would be testifying and requested all persons testifying to identify himself or herself. Copies of all documents presented must be identified and provided to the Clerk. Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 10,2005 E. New Business: Applicant: Reference: Explanation: Jose A. Obeso, J.A.O. Architects Serrano and Palmyra II The applicant is appealing the Building Official's decision to allow the time noted in Table 709.2.1.4B of the 2001 Florida Building Code Timothy Large, Interim Building Official, reported the applicant is requesting the Board provide a determination involving the interpretation made by Don Johnson, the former City Building Official, dealing with the required fire rating of an exterior wall for structures and its proximity to the property line. Don Johnson testified during his tenure as the City's Building Official, Mr. Obeso filed for an appeal of his decision for an alternate method he approved to create the time necessary for a complete one-hour assembly. Mr. Johnson referred to the letter from J.A.O. Architects & Planners dated August 29, 2005 included in the agenda packet and marked Exhibit E. The letter requested that the applicant be permitted to use alternate material to put together an assembly using the soffit on zero lot line property. Mr. Johnson next referred to Exhibit D that was a typical survey of a zero lot line property. He explained many developers use zero lot lines to achieve the greatest density possible in a development, utilizing the lot size to their advantage. Zero lot line properties do not have normal setbacks. The applicant's development is holding dead to the property line. There is a maintenance easement of approximately 3' that allows the property owner to maintain his side of wall and his overhang. Mr. Johnson previously approved a masonry CBS wall that went to the top of the tie beam for this project. The applicant created a U.L. design, similar to a curtain wall type of application in the soffit area using 5/8" type 'x' drywall and 'Thermafiber.' Approval of the wall elevation can be found at the top of Exhibit E. Mr. Obeso proposed at that time and Mr. Johnson approved the installation of a 2" Thermafiber Safing insulation panel in between each truss that would go on top of the 5/8 type "x" drywall and laid horizontally. Hi-rib wire lath and stucco would be placed underneath that would go across the tie beam with the installation being friction tight between the facia and trusses. This type of application is commonly used on commercial buildings which is the reason Mr. Johnson approved this as an alternate method. Prior to approving this alternate method, Mr. Obeso presented his plans and proposed to do a "one hour wall" in the soffit using one layer of 5/8" type "x" dry wall and high rib wire laths on the underside. Mr. Johnson referred to his letter dated September 28, 2005 to Milton Russell, Chairman. The letter explained that Mr. Johnson put in over 10 hours of research on this request that he discussed at length and which was enumerated in the letter. While he was contacting and speaking with these sources, he was working with Mr. Obeso to 2 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 10, 2005 resolve the issue. One of the sources indicated they never did a test using only hi-rib wire lath and stucco alone. Another source that was contacted was U.L. (Underwriters Laboratory) and Mr. Johnson spoke with the person in charge of fire resistant testing. After speaking with U.L. for over an hour, he was not successful in coming up with a U.L. assembly that could be used in this type of application. Mr. Johnson also was not successful in finding a "time assigned" for a horizontal assembly. He did, however, find a "time assigned" for a vertical assembly waiL Mr. Johnson had inquired if the wall assembly could be turned and the time assigned in the horizontal soffit area could be used. He was informed this was not possible. U.L. told him that when a wall assembly is tested, a person could place their hand one to two inches away in a wall assembly next to the fire. However, when it is turned horizontally, the time changes and it is not the same as a vertical assembly. U.L. was very concerned if the City allowed this method of assembly. The applicant's project is under construction on Lawrence Road and they have been proceeding with the alternate method that Mr. Johnson had approved. The buildings have been approved and C.O.'d using this assembly. This method is costing the applicant more money than if they were allowed to place the wire lath and stucco as they requested. Mr. Obeso is present tonight to present his case on what he is proposing and is seeking relief from Mr. Johnson's decision. Vice Chair Bessell inquired if there were other soffit vents provided in addition to the ones shown in the drawings. Mr. Johnson responded there are soffit vents all around the building, except on the zero lot line side where there are none. Mr. Obeso calculated the necessary ventilation on the other sides and used the other three sides to comply with the ventilation code requirement for the entire building. Mr. Kurtz inquired how many buildings were approved using the alternate method. Jose A. Obeso, Architect for D.R. Horton Homes, responded in the Palmyra development 25 homes have been completed using the alternate method. The project still has 65 homes to be completed. The Serrano project is waiting the outcome of this meeting so they would know how to proceed. Mr. Obeso said that the City of Boynton Beach is the only City he is aware of that fire rates the soffit overhang for a zero lot line. All homes that have been built to date have been built with 5/8" type "x" on the bottom of the soffit and 7/8" stucco and metal lath underneath it. Mr. Obeso felt the combination of those materials would provide the one- hour fire rating necessary in the area in question. Mr. Obeso presented drawings in support of his testimony. Mr. Obeso referred to Exhibit G in the agenda packet that displayed a similar assembly that he described. The bottom of the assembly is stucco comprised of 5/8" plaster 3 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 10, 2005 cement. Vice Chair Bessell felt this was a very old method. For the top of the assembly, they used 5/8" type "x" drywall. Mr. Obeso asserted that both assemblies meet the one- hour fire rating. He pointed out the assembly also used 7/8" stucco that exceeded the Code. He felt it was only necessary to have protection at the bottom of the soffit area. Mr. Obeso noted that many gypsum companies pay to have their products tested, but the plaster cement company has not done any reliable testing of plaster alone. Mr. Obeso felt the amount of stucco they would be using at the bottom of the drywall would add an additional 15 minutes; however, he did not have a test to confirm this. He also felt that they were exceeding the required protection necessary. They would be utilizing two materials that would provide one hour that would be placed at the bottom. Type "x" by itself provided at least 40 minutes. In addition to the 40 minutes, they are adding one (1) inch of stucco that will provide the one hour. He is basing his assumptions on tests that have already been proven. Mr. Kurtz asked the applicant if the request was an economical one. Mr. Obeso said it was more principle than financial on his part, but to D.R. Horton it would probably be more financial. Further, he felt they were being required to add material that was not necessary. From his experience, sometimes adding insulation to an assembly may be of no assistance. Sometimes insulation contributed to heat built up causing the assembly to disintegrate prematurely. In Mr. Obeso's opinion, he does not feel that the insulation is necessary, nor is the area big enough to justify all this additional work. What they are proposing is normally done. Mr. Kurtz again inquired if Mr. Obeso's request were granted, would it cost less to build the remaining houses. Mr. Obeso said the reason they built the 25 homes was to continue with the construction of the project. They did not want to hold up the project, knowing they would be appealing Mr. Johnson's ruling to this Board. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the insulation being installed is a fire safe blanket with a fire rating and time assigned. Vice Chair Bessell noted the handout the Board was provided was for an interior wood floor truss, which Mr. Obeso confirmed was correct. Further, Vice Chair Bessell pointed out the applicant was using this assembly on an exterior roof truss. Vice Chair Bessell, pointed out there was a big difference between exterior and interior. Vice Chair Bessell was aware that there were two alternate methods that the applicant could use that would satisfy the requirements of the building code. He recommended using two layers of 5/8" dry wall and then cover the dry wall with mesh and stucco, eliminating the fire safing. Mr. Obeso said at one time they did use the two layers, but the stucco was leaking out and they had to change their method. Vice Chair Bessell also felt that the truss could be made one foot smaller to end at the block wall and then it could be run straight up. Mr. Kurtz agreed with this method as 4 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 10, 2005 well. Vice Chair Bessell recommended eliminating the overhang. Mr. Obeso said they did not want to proceed this way aesthetically. Mr. Kurtz noted that there was a great deal of technical discussion. In summary, he stated the applicant submitted a plan to the Building Division that was reviewed in accordance with the Building Division's review procedure. In reviewing the application, the Building Division determined what was submitted did not comply with the table used for 16" studs on center. Mr. Johnson then offered an alternative way to the applicant to get the task done, as evidenced by Mr. Johnson's letter of September 28, 2005. The applicant built 25 houses to keep the project going and now has come back to this Board with a request that the original submission to the Building Division be approved, even though the Building Division turned it down. Mr. Kurtz was not in favor of granting the appeal. Mr. Obeso responded that when the original plan was submitted, the City requested that 7/8" walls be added and they complied with this request by adding the fire rating at the soffit. The issue that the blanket was not sufficient surfaced later. He pointed out that they have built more than 25 homes in Boynton Beach using this same assembly. When the plans were originally reviewed, the plan reviewer approved the assembly that Mr. Obeso presented. Houses were being constructed, but one field inspector did not feel that their method was sufficient. At that time, Mr. Johnson addressed the issue and they were requested to add the additional insulation. Mr. Johnson confirmed what Mr. Obeso stated. Mr. Johnson explained the plan reviewer made a mistake by accepting the vertical wall time and this was pointed out to him. After this occurred, Mr. Johnson immediately telephoned Mr. Obeso to inform him of the problem and they started to address this. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the City is bound by the Code and if a mistake is made, it must be corrected. The City processes over 12,000 plans each year, but it is impossible for him to review all of them. Mr. Johnson noted that the table used by Mr. Obeso was for a vertical wall and not for a soffit or ceiling assembly. If Mr. Obeso presented a full ceiling assembly that would meet the code, he would have approved it. Once Mr. Obeso was contacted, the City stopped approving any more wire lath assemblies. They tried to come up with something that would work by contacting experts that Mr. Johnson previously pointed out, but they were not successful in coming up with a time for the horizontal assembly. This particular assembly required two layers of %" plywood that would have been very cost prohibitive. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the prescriptive measures must be followed to the "T" and under wood assembly section in Section 709.6.1.1, there are procedures for calculating the fire resistant ratings of walls, floor ceiling and roof ceiling assemblies, based in part on the standard method of testing referenced in Section 701. Mr. Guritzky inquired if this Board approved the applicant's request and a problem surfaced at a later date, could the City be held responsible. Attorney Cherof responded 5 Meeting Minutes Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals Boynton Beach, Florida November 10, 2005 that the Board is charged with either upholding or reversing the decision of the Building Official that would provide the City with the level of liability insulation that they are looking for. Vice Chair Bessell asked Mr. Obeso why he did not want to accept Mr. Johnson's recommended alternate method. Mr. Obeso did not think the Thermafiber was necessary. He felt it did not apply to the project because it fell under the old Code. Mr. Kurtz said that enough time had been spent discussing the technical aspects of the application, and a motion at this time would be appropriate. Motion Mr. Kurtz moved to disapprove the application and to continue with the decision of the Building Official. Motion seconded by Mr. Guritzky. The motion to deny the application carried 4-1 (Vice Chair Bessell dissenting). F. Announcements None G. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,,4- (A~v6-14-t('-. }...... }k tt-~~~ Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (November 14, 2005) 6