FRSA Helps Clarify the 25% Rule 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 22
FLORIDA ROOFING | June 2021
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