Loading...
Minutes 04-06-00BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, cITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT Richard Kurtz, Chairman Don Johnson, Building Official A. Malek Abdallah Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney Michael Bessell Robert Mulroy Milton Russell, Vice Chairman Robert Zimmerman ABSENT Melvin Sternbach A. CALL TO ORDER-Richard Kurtz, Chairman Chairman Kurtz presided at the meeting and called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS Chairman Kurtz ,introduced Nicholas Ig,we, Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Don Johnson, the City s Building Official, and the Members. C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES OF THE JULY 8, 1999 MEETINg.. Chairman Kurtz asked if there were any additions or corrections to the July 8, 1999 minutes. Hearing none, he called for a motion to approve the minutes. Motion Mr. Bessell moved to approve the minutes of the July 8, 1999 meeting. Vice Chair Russell seconded the motion, which, carried 5-0. (Mr. Muiroy requested to abstain from approving the minutes because he was not in attendance at the meeting.) D. OLD BUSINESS None MEETING MINUTES BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 6, 2000 E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Applicant: Reference: Explanation- Homayoon Abtahi, Ph.D., P.E. 2700 Quantum Park Blvd. (Stanton Magnetics) Relief from Sec. 304.8.3, Standard Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition, which requires units larger than 3 tons to drain to a sanitary sewer drain or an approved French drain. Chairman Kurtz inquired if the applicants were present and Mr. Johnson stated that they were. Chairman Kurtz stated that all persons giving evidence before the Board needed to be sworn in and requested Assistant City Attorney Igwe to administer the oath to all persons who would be testifying. Chairman Kurtz requested that Mr. Johnson present tonight's case. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is requesting relief from the Standard Mechanical Code 1997 Edition, Section 304.8.3 ("condensate disposal place"). Mr. Johnson recited the applicable section as follows: "Condensate from all cooling coils or evaporators shall be piped from the drop pan outlet to a suitable disposal place where it will not cause a nuisance as follows: "Units larger than 3 tons (10.6 kW) nominal capacity shall drain to a sanitary sewer drain through an indirect waste, storm sewer drain or an approved French drain. "Units 3 tons (10.6 kW) and smaller capacity may terminate in gutter or roof drain, on a concrete pad or other location subject to approval of the mechanical official. "Condensate drains from rooftop units may spill on rooftop providing the condensate does not drain into a street or alley, or other areas of sufficient amount to be a menace." Mr. Johnson stated that there are 11 units totaling 110 tons located on the roof of the building, the smallest unit being 6 tons. The design professional feels that the condensate could drain onto the roof and would either evaporate or drain into the rain scuppers, which are provided. This is not allowed as set forth in No. 1, above. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant feels that No. 3, above is applicable to this project. Mr. Ronnie Green of the Southern Building Code Congress International was consulted for a technical interpretation and Mr. MEETING MINUTES ..... BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 6, 2000 Green agreed with staff's interpretation of the code that No. 1 applies. Mr. Green stated that No. 3 only deals with units of 3 tons or smaller. Mr. Johnson requested that the City's Senior Plumbing and Mechanical Inspector, Mr. Joe Patrick, inspector of record on the site, take the podium. Mr. Patrick assumed the podium and stated he is the mechanical inspector of record on the project. He said there are several rooftop package units with a condensate range which the applicant feels should be allowed to drain onto the roof. Staff interprets the code that drains must be installed on these units. Mr. Patrick said if drains were not installed, the condensate water would discharge directly onto the roof, which is the most likely place to leak. Also, this would cause a maintenance problem with algae forming on the roof and could create a slip and fall hazard. Chairman Kurtz inquired if any Board members had any questions? Mr. Bessell asked if this were a new building and was informed that it was. Mr. Bessell inquired if drains were included on the permitted drawings and Mr. Patrick stated that the permitted drawings do not show any drains. Chairman Kurtz inquired if the drawings were approved without any drains and was informed that they were. Mr. Johnson stated it is very unusual that the drain details would be included on a set of plans and they are usually not included on the plans. Mr. Johnson stated this is an explicit code requirement and the mechanical contractor was well aware of this. Mr. Johnson stated that staff has consistently enforced this code for other projects in the City. Mr. Mulroy asked if the mechanical contractor neglected or refused to put the drains in? Mr. Patrick stated that the applicant feels they were not included on the site plans and the applicant interprets the code differently. Mr. Mulroy inqUired how much additional weight would the water put on the roof? Mr. Patrick stated it would depend upon the time of the year. Mr. Patrick noted that water weighs 7 pounds per gallon and there are 110 tons of air conditioners on the roof, which could account for approximately 30 gallons per hour. It would also depend on how many air conditioners are running at the same time. Mr. Zimmerman inquired if there was a pitch to the roof and was informed that there is a pitch to the roof, but it is basically a fiat, bar-joist roof. Mr. Abdallah asked Assistant Attorney Igwe if this Board was supposed to interpret the code or is the Board only supposed to consider hardship? Attorney Igwe stated that this Board does not interpret the code and only deals with hardship. Attorney Igwe felt that the applicant is appealing staff's interpretation 3 MEETING MINUTES BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 6, 2000 of the Building Official. Attorney Igwe also stated that this Board deals with more than hardship and this particular case is not a case of hardship. At this point, Chairman Kurtz recited the four criteria of a "hardship" which was contained in the minutes of the last meeting to the members. Chairman Kurtz requested that the petitioner step up to the podium to present his case. Mr. Homayoon Abtahi took the podium and stated he is a consulting engineer with a background in mechanical engineering and air conditioning. Mr. Abtahi stated that he prepared the plans without the drains and said that the pipes could create corrosion problems and can become a mess on the roof after time. He stated he made a conscious decision not to have drains and it was designed this way. Mr. Abtahi called attention to the fact that there is a slope to the roof and they are well drained. There is no possibility that the water would puddle on the roof, unless the roof was installed poody. Mr. Abtahi stated that usually drains get clogged up and people working on the roof often fall over the drains and break them. Mr. Abtahi said he interprets that section of the code differently. He said that during the first telephone conference call with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Green, he felt that Mr. Green was vague in his interpretation of the code and stated the code was very vague. Mr. Abtahi said he is requesting that the Southern Building Code re-write this section because it is so vague. Mr. Abtahi pointed out that the condensate on the roof is draining to a retention dry well area and water will not accumulate on the roof. He feels that this is merely an interpretation issue. Mr. Abtahi felt that this interpretation could be somewhat of a hardship because the building is completely ready for a C.O. except for this one point. Further, he pointed out that if they are required to place drains on the rooftop, which is already finished, the applicant will have to place concrete blocks to hold the pipes down which are required to withstand 110 m.p.h, wind. Further, Mr. Abtahi felt that any algae on the roof that would remain would be the same amount from any rain. The amount of water coming from the units is not even measurable in terms of rainfall. Mr. Abtahi felt it was bad engineering to have to put pipes held down by concrete on the rooftop at this point. Chairman Kurtz asked Assistant City Attorney to administer the oath to Mr. Mike Sapula, of JMS Design, the architect and planner for the project, who took the podium. An inquiry on the size of the roof was made and he replied that the roof is 33,000 square feet with a center high point that slopes down to the edges from mid-point down 18". Therefore, this is approximately 12 to 18 inches of pitch, or 4 MEETING MINUTES BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 6, 2000 one-quarter inch per foot and at the end of each slope, there are four downspouts on each side. Also, overflow scuppers are provided. Mr. Sapula stated that the water would not be standing water because of the slope of the roof. Mr. Mulroy inquired if all the units were bigger than 3 tons and was informed they were 6 tons to 12 ¼ tons. Mr. Mulroy asked if the units were packaged units or split units and Mr. Abtahi stated they were packaged rooftop units, but believes the code refers to split units. Assistant City Attorney Igwe referred to Section 304.8.3 which states that "condensate from all cooling coils or evaporators shall be piped" and therefore No. 1, 2 and 3 comes under this Section. Therefore, this refers to all condensate, regardless if it were a spit unit or a rooftop unit. Chairman Kurtz stated that the first paragraph of Section 304.8.3 requires that the condensate leave the machinery by piping to the drip pan outlet. Mr. Abtahi stated that all the rooftop units are piped. Chairman Kurtz inquired about the expertise of Mr. Green who has been mentioned several times throughout the meeting and asked if he was authorized to give an official interpretation. Assistant City Attorney Igwe responded that Mr. Green acted in an advisory capacity to assist the City. Mr. Abtahi stated they have no problem with No. 1 and that the condensate is piped onto the rooftop out of the drain and then just drops. The question is where the piping terminates and Mr. Abtahi feels that No. 3 refers to rooftops. Mr. Zimmerman inquired where the water is going to and Mr. Abtahi stated to a grassy, retention, dry area required by the flood calculations, which is a percolation area. Vice Chair Russell asked if any of the water would drain onto any pavement or parking lot and Mr. Abtahi said it would not. The water is directed away from any paved area. Also, all the drains are being placed toward the south so that there would be no algae. Chairman Kurtz felt that if the owner of the project did not object to the water going onto his roof or the effect the water would have on the roof, he feels the owner should be able to do this until the code is clearly clarified. Mr. Sapula pointed out that the retention area is designed to handle a "100-year flood" and can certainly handle 30 gallons per day being put out by the units. Further, Mr. Sapula said that most of the water would evaporate before it even reaches the gutters. MEETING MINUTES BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 6, 2000 Vice Chair Russell inquired if the Board denied the applicant relief from the code, does the applicant have an alternative plan for piping the water?. Mr. Abtahi stated if the applicant was not granted relief, they would have to come up with an alternative design. Mr. Johnson questioned the material was on the roof and Mr. Sapula replied it is a built-up roof system, part gravel and modified bitumen. Mr. Johnson noted that the product approval for a modified bitumen roof states explicitly that the water will evaporate, not puddle, and dissipate in 48 hours. Therefore, Mr. Johnson said that the water would soak the roof continuously because this is a manufacturing plant and there will be a great many machines producing a great deal of heat. Mr. Sapula replied that the units would not be cycling 24-hours per day when it was not hot and sunny. Therefore the condensate would be lower and during the heat of the summer, the water would continue to evaporate. Also, Mr. Sapula pointed out that the roof is not fiat and slopes 3/16" of an inch per foot. Mr. Sapula said he could provide hold harmless documentation that the applicant would not hold the City responsible if the roof was damaged. Mr. Johnson further was of the opinion that Item No. 3, which states "or other areas of sufficient amount to be a menace" would apply and that at least 30 gallons per hour of water would be generated. Mr. Abtahi stated that in the worse case scenario in Florida, the water generation is one gallon per hour for every 5 tons, which applied to an open type building. This building is a closed factory and will generate less water per ton than an average open Home Depot. Mr. Zimmerman said he would like the applicant to furnish the City with a hold harmless letter in the event of any roof damage. Chairman Kurtz called for a motion. Motion Mr. Zimmerman moved to approve relief for the applicant to the Standard Mechanical Code. Mr. Mulroy seconded the motion. Mr. Bessell said he could not support the motion and felt that the omission on the apProved plans was purposely omitted. Just because they were not on the plans when the permit was issued, doesn't mean that they are not required. The Building Official says it is a code item and the mechanical official says it has to be done and this should have been addressed previously. Chairman Kurtz felt it was a design prerogative on how the applicant intended to get rid of the water without running pipes. Mr. Abtahi said he left it off the design not to deceive anyone, but for design purposes and he felt once the City approved the design, it meant the City agreed with it. 6 MEETING MINUTES ' BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 6, 2000 Chairman Kurtz requested that the discussion at this point be limited to the members of the Board. Vice Chair Russell said he could not support relief from the code because this is a code requirement. Chairman Kurtz felt that the Code was not clear enough on how to handle this situation. After discussion, Chairman Kurtz called for a vote on the motion. Th e vote was tied 3 to 3. The 3 votes cast for granting relief were Chairman Kurtz and Messrs. Mulroy and Zimmerman. The 3 votes cast for denial of the motion were Vice Chair Russell and Messrs. Bessell and Abdallah. Because the vote was tied 3-3, Attorney Igwe advised that under the code, in order to have the motion pass, it would require four affirmative votes since the Board is comprised of seven members. Therefore, the decision of the Building Official prevails. F. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Kurtz thanked the Board for their fine work and noted the knowledge and expertise on the Board is a credit to the City. G. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Chair Russell moved to adjourn, which was duly seconded by Mr. Mulroy. The meeting properly adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (one tape) To: Sue Kruse MEMO From: Barbara Madden Re: Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals Date: March 30, 2000 Bonnie Glinski requested that a Recording Secretary be available for a Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, April 13th in Conference Room C at 6:30 P.M. She is going to coordinate the Conference Room with Doris and the availability of the Board Members and will get back to us. She asked that we tentatively hold this date open.