Mike Silvers, CPRC, Owner of Silvers Systems Inc. and FRSA Technical Director
At the beginning of the year, after the adoption of the Florida Building Code (FBC) 7th Edition (2020), a fellow codes professional called me to voice a concern about an inadvertent deletion during a renumbering of Chapters 4, 5 and 6 in the FBC 7th Edition (2020) Existing Building might cause major changes in the way that Section 706.1.1, the 25 percent rule, was interpreted. I wasn’t surprised that something might go awry when someone decides to reorganize a section of the code. On a slide created a year ago in our “Roofing Related Changes to the FBC” seminar, I noted: “These major renumbering type changes usually have unforeseen consequences!” The section that was left out was from Chapter 5, Related Work in the FBC Existing Building 6th Edition (2017) Section 502.3 which stated:
Work on non-damaged components that is necessary for the required repair of damaged components shall be considered part of the repair and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11.
Since the 25 percent rule was in Chapter 7 and because of Section 502.3, the 25 percent rule, previously did not apply to non-damaged components, the concern was that without the language in Section 502.3, it would be left up to whoever was doing the work to decide how much work to do – by including non-damaged components, they could push the work beyond 25 percent of the roof area which would prompt complete roof replacement. This has been a common approach when pushing insurers to approve a complete roof replacement instead of a proper repair even when the actual damage was minimal. Section 706.1.1 states:
Not more than 25 percent of the total roof area or roof section of any existing building or structure shall be repaired, replaced or recovered in any 12-month period unless the entire existing roofing system or roof section is replaced to conform to requirements of this code.
This language uses the term “roof area or roof section” and a “roof area” is not defined in the FBC but a roof section is defined in Chapter 2 as follows:
ROOF SECTION. A separating or division of a roof area by existing expansion joints, parapet walls, flashing (excluding valley), difference of elevation (excluding hips and ridges), roof type or legal description; not including the roof area required for a proper tie-off with an existing system.
The section of the definition that says “not including the roof area required for a proper tie-off with an existing system” clearly states that the tie-off (typically referred to as tie-in) would not be included in the roof section. This position was shared with the aforementioned professional and the issue was discussed with the FRSA Codes Committee chairs and with members of the Codes Subcommittee. It was unlikely this was the last time concerns about this deletion would arise.
In February, a petitioner asked the Florida Building Commission, through a Petition for Declaratory Statement (DS 2021-007), the following question:
When determining if a roof repair exceeds the 25 percent threshold specified in Section 706.1.1 of the 7th Edition of the FBC – Existing Building, should work on non-damaged components still be omitted from the repair area calculation?
FRSA reviewed the request and felt that the answer to this question would be critical. We shared our opinion about the roof area definition with several key stakeholders. After sharing our view and further consultation with FRSA Legal Counsel, Trent Cotney, we
requested that Trent’s office file a Motion to Intervene on behalf of FRSA. Trent assigned the drafting and filing of the motion to Travis McConnell who did a great job stating our position and expanding on it. Our thanks to them. The FBC staff analysis issued later also agreed with our conclusions.
When the petition came before the Roofing Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), FRSA offered testimony restating our position. We also requested that the answer be as simple and straightforward as possible. After much discussion and a few amendments, a motion was made by Roofing TAC member and FRSA Past President, George Ebersold, which was unanimously approved by the TAC and later by the Florida Building Commission and answered the question as follows:
The answer is yes. In accordance with the definition of ‘‘Roof Section” in Section 202, Florida Building Code, Existing Building 7th
Edition (2020) related work which involves removal and installation of components for the purpose of connecting repaired areas to
unrepaired areas (roof areas required for a proper tie-off) shall not be considered part of the roof repair in question and therefore such related work shall not be counted toward the 25 percent threshold stated in Section 706.1.1 Florida Building Code, Existing Building, 7th Edition (2020).
So, what are the practical implications of all of this? In the hypothetical situation shown in Example 1, a typical 3,250 sq. ft. (roof section) hip roof (5:12 pitch) has sustained actual damage to an area of 467.5 sq. ft. (15 percent of the roof section). The damage occurred from a tree limb that fell on the lower portion of a 942.5 sq. ft. roof area (29 percent of the roof section).
Prudent roofers may not have confidence in the area upslope from the damage since they may not be aware of the overall quality, or in some cases, the condition of that area. This is of particular concern where the underlayment is part of the primary roof covering, as with tile. By terminating your work at the top of
the slope, you can assure a weathertight installation. This Declaratory Statement confirms that the 455 sq. ft. area needed for a proper tie-off would not apply when calculating the 25 percent threshold. This work should not require complete
replacement of the roof.
In Example 2, the same hypothetical roof has sustained wind damage on only one end of the roof. The roof damage is consistent on the entire 650 sq. ft. area (20 percent). Since this
area does not exceed 25 percent of the roof section, this work should also not require complete replacement of the roof.
In Example number 3, the same roof has sustained wind damage on a larger roof area. The roof damage is consistent on the entire 943 sq. ft. area (29 percent of the roof section).
Since this damage exceeds (not including tie-offs) the 25 percent threshold, this work would require complete roof replacement to conform to requirements of the code.
In Example 4 (page 26), on a different hypothetical roof with a low slope roof covering, the entire roof section is 16,000 sq. ft. It is divided into four equal sections by interior walls but has none of the dividers on the roof that are described in the roof section definition. The building owner has a new tenant in a quarter (4,000 sq. ft. or 25 percent of the roof area) of the building. The new tenant considers the existing roof’s age and condition, with previous repair attempts throughout, unacceptable (damaged) and requires that it be replaced prior to accepting the lease. Since this roof covering is an asphalt-based roof system, a proper
three-step tie-in requires a 3-footwide tie-off on a 240 sq. ft. roof area. The Declaratory Statement confirms that the 240 sq. ft. area needed for a proper tie-off would not apply when calculating the 25 percent threshold. This work should not require complete
replacement of the roof section. FRSA feels this Declaratory Statement will help most legitimate roofers deal with the 25 percent rule while it also helps to reduce some of the opportunities for abuse.
Mike Silvers, CPRC is owner of Silvers Systems Inc. and is consulting with FRSA as Director of Technical Services. Mike is an FRSA Past President, Life Member and Campanella Award recipient and brings over 45 years ofindustry knowledge and experience to
FRSA’s team.
Previous Article
Next Article