Interpretation #7758

Original Request

Code Version: 2014
Code: EXTBLDG
Code Description
Chapter
Section: 708.1.1
Topic: Reroofing requirements

Question

Is it the intent of Section 708.1.1 to require the entire roof of a single family home to be replaced when the contractor proposes to replace the front portion (50%) only? Is it the intent of the code to allow for the front portion to be considered a "section" as allowed by 708.1.1 when reroofing a structure? Is it the intent of the code to have the entire roof replaced if proper documentation, including permits and inspections, for the rear portion was performed, including mitigation requirements in 2004 (Under the 2001 Florida Building Code) authorized by the city of the proposed work scope was completed?

Answer Published 05/20/2016 at 8:36 AM

Question 1: Maybe, if the other portion of the roof already
meets the code, then No.

Question 2: Maybe, if it meets what is set out in section
708.1.1, be mindful, this section excludes hips and ridges.

Question 3: No, it is not the codes intent to require the
entire roof to be reroofed if it meets the code already,
refer to section 708.1.1

Commentary

It does sound like the front portion of the roof is a "section" as defined in the Florida Building Code. But, the code does not say that the entire roof must be replaced, it says that the entire roof must be constructed to current code. It is possible that the sheathing is nailed off to todays code and the roofing material is installed to todays code but someone needs to do their homework and prove it. If it can not be proven, then, the entire roof must be replaced if more than 50% of the roof is done. If the front section meets the definition of ROOF SECTION, the answer is maybe. 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 code section in the FBC-Existing Building seems to be clear. If the FBC-Residential chapter 9 is consulted, there are many references to "single family residential structures permitted subject to the Florida Building Code are not required to comply with this section". If, in fact, the rear section was permitted in 2004 as the suggested, there may be some wiggle room in the interpretation that would allow the uncompleted section to be re-roofed without needing to comply to section FBC-Existing Building section 708. The inference would be that the section that was re-roofed would be assumed to comply with the FBC in effect at the time and therefore not need to be re-re-roofed.