Florida Building Code - Patio Deck

[Kage]

Hello,

I'm having a hard time with getting info from city officials regarding repairing or replacing a patio deck on a commercial condo property.

Basically, a unit owner had their patio deck replaced and did not have it permitted. We are unable to locate the specific Florida code statute that discusses this. City officials have been unable to assist in person and haven't replied via email. Looking here has been a rabbit hole. Can anyone advise me on this? Thank you.

 

[BN4537]

Florida code is different than everyone else's, and there are some Florida guys on here that will chime in.

As an outsider with internet access and general code knowledge, I would look at section 105.1 and 105.2.2 of the Florida Building Code that I found at the link here: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/F...administration#FLBC2023P2_Ch01_SubCh02_Sec105

If you are responding to a notice of some type from the city, posting a redacted version of the notice here and pictures of the deck in question could shed light on the situation.

 

[Kage]

Thanks for the quick reply, truly appreciated.

We are just trying to prevent a precedent being set at the community in which the patio deck was practically demolished, and the unit owner is stating they did not need a permit for this.

I believe Section 105.2.2 relates to this as, "removal or cutting of any structural beam or load-bearing support" which the photos show load bearing support was removed. As such, this has to be permitted in which we are back tracking to do so now. Is this accurate?

 

[BN4537]

I am not the local building official, but I would say that definitely needs a permit.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Hello,

I'm having a hard time with getting info from city officials regarding repairing or replacing a patio deck on a commercial condo property.

Basically, a unit owner had their patio deck replaced and did not have it permitted. We are unable to locate the specific Florida code statute that discusses this. City officials have been unable to assist in person and haven't replied via email. Looking here has been a rabbit hole. Can anyone advise me on this? Thank you.

Is it a patio, or a deck?

A patio is pavers laid directly on the ground. A deck is a structure that's raised above the ground. Do the photos you posted in post #3 show the deck in question? If so, it was a deck (not a patio), and repairing or replacing it requires a permit.

The basic starting point in the code is that everything requires a permit. Then section 105.2 lists the exceptions, for which permits are not required.

Also, who owns the deck? At the condo where I lived, exterior decks (such as the one shown) were "limited common elements." That means I did NOT own it, the association owned it but it was reserved for my exclusive use. Which means any repairs (and the permits) would be the responsibility of the association, not the unit owner. Have you reviewed your declaration documents?

 

[Kage]

Thank you. I'm just looking to find the specific verbiage of the deck requiring a permit I would think is found from here but I cannot find it. In this case, unit owner responsibility. Wasn't run by city.

@BN4537 thank you, I think.

Would these photos satisfy those conditions?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Florida Building Code:



The work being done very clearly is a repair, and unless it gets rebuilt exactly as it was it may also be an alteration. So a permit is required unless there's something in the section addressing work not requiring a permit that provides an exception. [Hint: There isn't.] Ripping out the entire deck structure is not a "minor" repair. Even if it were, the language of IBC 105.2.2 clearly says that the building official must approve performing the repair without a permit. An owner can't just proceed without asking. And since 105.2.2 excludes the removal or cutting of any structural beam or load-bearing support, and in your case the entire structure has been removed, 105.2.2 does not apply.




You won't find language that explicitly says a deck repair requires a permit because, as I commented previously, the starting point of the code is that ALL work requires a permit -- unless it is specifically exempted by section 105.2, Work exempt from permit.

Deck collapses that result in multiple serious injuries and deaths are a problem everywhere in the U.S. (and likely in Canada, as well). Most building officials are very concerned about deck construction.

 

[e hilton]

Curious what your role is. Looks like you are in Penn? What city is the condo located in?

 

[BN4537]

Thank you. I'm just looking to find the specific verbiage of the deck requiring a permit I would think is found from here but I cannot find it. In this case, unit owner responsibility. Wasn't run by city.

@BN4537 thank you, I think.

Would these photos satisfy those conditions?

Sorry for the lack of detail in my response, in my time zone I was just about to clock out and leave, and my account is on my work computer.

The code basically starts out in 105.1 that everything needs a permit. It then lists a few exceptions, like 105.2.2, that don't require a permit. If it's not on the list that doesn't require a permit, then it needs a permit.

It appears from the pictures that the posts, beam, and joists were all removed, and presumably replaced. Where the code begins to talk about structural members such as beams and load bearing supports, I would say that definitely applies to the posts being removed/replaced, and the front beam of the deck that the posts were supporting. Either of those items being removed or replaced would require a building permit. The odds are high that the original beam is undersized, and that it's connection to the post looks to rely on bolting instead of full bearing (actually sitting on the post or notched into the post where the beam is actually sitting directly on wood), which is completely wrong. Posts may be undersized also. If they just "put it back the way it was", they will be tearing it apart and starting over if a competent inspector gets involved.

I would also stretch it to mean that if any of the joists that run 16" on center are replaced, a permit would also be required, but that is an interpretation that is up to the local building official. Even if that is their interpretation, replacing a joist or two like-for-like would likely be better handled as don't-ask-don't-tell because it is not worth the inspector's time.

Deck collapses kill more people annually than all of the other varieties of framing collapses combined. This fact, combined with the fact that lumber is not as strong as it used to be because we continue to accelerate the growing cycle of the trees, which make the growth rings farther apart and weakens the lumber, so the same size lumber may not span far enough to go back like-for-like.

You really will need to talk to the local building department for concrete answers - I am an inspector, and I do have a decent grasp on the model code that the Florida Code is based on, but if they do things weird locally, I have no way of knowing that from my lofty perch behind my keyboard here in Kansas. That is why I keep putting a disclaimer in my answers - just because the rest of the nation or state does it this way, doesn't mean they do it there.