Richard Emerson
Member
Given:
Change of Use/ Change of Occupancy
From B/M/R-1 to all R-1
Type V-B Construction, 5,966 sf, unprotected, non-sprinklered
Applied 2003 IBC 3406.1 Conformance.
“No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancy. Subject to the approval of the building official, the use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be permitted to be changed and the building is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements of this code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.”
This kicked in Sprinkler requirement under 903.2.7 Group R. [F]
“An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.”
Applicant is balking due to
1) Claiming misinterpretation of 903.2 Where required. [F]
“Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section.” (emphasis added) Thinks it doesn’t apply to project because building is not new. There is a substantial amount of work under permit to replace electrical, mechanical, sheetrock and insulation, plus add a pool. Other than accessible upgrades, no change to MOE. Building sides and rear are 3’ or less to property line.
2) On another project, a former plans examiner had not applied 903.2 to a Change of Occupancy from I-4 (daycare) to R-1 (Motel, transient). Reviewer perhaps thought that 903.2 was in place(?) prior to issuing permit to convert a single room to be accessible. CO was issued 2 years ago once all work was complete. Don’t know what inspector recorded for Final or CO.
3) Sidebar – city incorporated in 2000, no previous CO issued for either building prior to permit and CO application.
I have formulated my response; however, I am soliciting response from others. How would you address #1 “This doesn’t apply to my project as it is not new”, and #2 as applicant is saying “Do the same for me that you did for him”.
Thanks in advance.
Rich
Change of Use/ Change of Occupancy
From B/M/R-1 to all R-1
Type V-B Construction, 5,966 sf, unprotected, non-sprinklered
Applied 2003 IBC 3406.1 Conformance.
“No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancy. Subject to the approval of the building official, the use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be permitted to be changed and the building is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements of this code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.”
This kicked in Sprinkler requirement under 903.2.7 Group R. [F]
“An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.”
Applicant is balking due to
1) Claiming misinterpretation of 903.2 Where required. [F]
“Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section.” (emphasis added) Thinks it doesn’t apply to project because building is not new. There is a substantial amount of work under permit to replace electrical, mechanical, sheetrock and insulation, plus add a pool. Other than accessible upgrades, no change to MOE. Building sides and rear are 3’ or less to property line.
2) On another project, a former plans examiner had not applied 903.2 to a Change of Occupancy from I-4 (daycare) to R-1 (Motel, transient). Reviewer perhaps thought that 903.2 was in place(?) prior to issuing permit to convert a single room to be accessible. CO was issued 2 years ago once all work was complete. Don’t know what inspector recorded for Final or CO.
3) Sidebar – city incorporated in 2000, no previous CO issued for either building prior to permit and CO application.
I have formulated my response; however, I am soliciting response from others. How would you address #1 “This doesn’t apply to my project as it is not new”, and #2 as applicant is saying “Do the same for me that you did for him”.
Thanks in advance.
Rich
