• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

2003 nys Code interpretation

B

Benjamin

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11
Location
Orange Cty, NY
Hi, I'm having a problem deciding what is required for a specific application.

I have to access an alteration of an existing building that was a 2 story brick building, first floor change of use from an office to a restaurant/bar with the second floor remaining as a residential apartment. When I go into the app K for existing buildings it gives an exception under plumbing to allow a unisex bathroom if it is not feasible to construct two. It would have to be handicap accessible which it is and on the same level as the dining area. But this exception seems to be stated in the alteration section of the codebook. When I go to the change of occupancy section it refers me to the requirements of the plumbing code for the new occupancy which requires 2 separate bathrooms. The alteration was completed 4 years ago and it has just come to light that the person was issued a CO to operate with just one bathroom. Is he required to have 2 accessible baths or can he be allowed to operate with just one?

thanks for your future imput

Ben
 
Not sure about NY, but here in CA change in use would require the toilet rooms be brought up to current code.
 
welcome, how did you find us??

seems like this is the answer"""" The alteration was completed 4 years ago and it has just come to light that the person was issued a CO to operate with just one bathroom""""

is someone asking the business to install another bathroom??

can I ask how you are connected with this?
 
I am the new building inspector and came into this situation after the previous inspector , who wasn;t the inspector who isuued the CO, issued the owner of the building an order to remedy based on the fact that the requirements were not correct. Now I am trying to clean up the mess. There is no room for another bathroom as thee place is quite small. I believe the architect overlooked the change of use requirements as well as the past building inspector.
 
any plans still laying around from the last remodel??? any notes, any inspection documentation??

so if they cannot add a bathroom then what?
 
the plans are there but make no mention as to the code sections addressed. He was cited to give proof of a 2hr fire separation to the apartment above as well as the new bathroom. One inspector said the owner might have to seek a variance thru NYS to keep the operation the way it is. As of now the business is still in operation with litigation against the inspector that issued the violations because the owner feels he went thru all the proper site plan approvals and was issued a CO so he believes he's being targeted. But it seems to me that incompetent people overlooked and approved this mess
 
it's a mess when things get inspected and passed when they shouldn't have. Cost people lots of money to remedy and makes the building inspection profession look like a sham
 
I feel your pain

Problem seems the city does not have documentation that the remodel was correct or not correct.

And guess the requirements being made are based on the code adopted at the time of the remodel.

Not sure how this was discovered, but hopefully the city is making other businesses do the same thing when found they did not build to code.

Variance is not a good word to use
 
it was done in 2005 and the 2003 code was in play at the time. Tough to have to tell the occupant that he has to stop his business until he corrects the issues which might not be possible to do. I really have no idea how to fix his problem. Why do you not like the variance word, except for the fact that everyone will want to cop the same plea
 
this is an isolated incident for some reason. Now he's even having trouble selling because of the open violations, very ugly.

great site and thanks for the feedback

Ben
 
Three inspectors ago, a CO was issued and four years later it is to be taken away for lack of a second toilet. I don't think so. It's not a life/safety violation and it's not feasible. The owner's livelihood is at stake and perhaps employees.

The jurisdiction certainly has the right to correct it's mistakes but I can see the jurisdiction losing a lawsuit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
Three inspectors ago, a CO was issued and four years later it is to be taken away for lack of a second toilet. I don't think so. It's not a life/safety violation and it's not feasible. The owner's livelihood is at stake and perhaps employees.The jurisdiction certainly has the right to correct it's mistakes but I can see the jurisdiction losing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Thanks ICE for the input. That's exactly how I look at it. If the owner can prove the 2 hr separation from the apartment above that is my major responsibility and concern. The accessibility issue is addressed because there is a handicap accessible bathroom on the main restaurant level. The occupant load is 34 so I have to look into the toilet requirements. The handicap accessible facility has one toilet and there is another toilet facility located on the second floor hallway that is not ADA compliant nor was the second floor involved with the alteration. Time to make a decision and I think you just cinched it for me.

Thanks Ben
 
The " V " word is only found in conjunction with floods, maybe that applies to toilets also, since they flood a place once in awhile.
 
Do you have any plans lying around about the most recent remodel of the house? If not, you need to check out for any kind of documentation. And how is that the alteration was completed 4 years ago and even after several years, the person failed to notice about just one bathroom.
 
The Plumbing Code has been consistent in allowing one unisex rest room in assembly spaces under OL of 15.

So somebody made a mistake ages ago, and approved a CO mistakenly? As Stevey Ray writes, the old CO is all the owenr needs to say "everything is OK here".

I would let that sleeping dog lie, and concentrate on current and future projects.
 
And don't poke the sleeping bear in the eye.......let it go......you didn't sign off on it.
 
fatboy said:
And don't poke the sleeping bear in the eye.......let it go......you didn't sign off on it.
Click to expand...
Iagree, but now there are 2 violations that were written 2 years ago that are still not closed.,

the 2 hr separation between occupancies and the additional bathroom/I'm looking to close them out which means I have to sign off on the resolutions when no remedy was accomplished....that's my dilemma Unless I just sign a correspondence that states we are honoring the CO that was issued in 2005.
 
My understanding of the legal president is that if the deficiency has a significant impact on health and safety that they need to correct the problem. If it is easy to correct the code violation then they need to correct it. On the other hand if health and safety are not major issues the building department could be precluded from requiring strict enforcement if the cost to correct was out of proportion to the benefit.
 
You may want to check your State Laws....if we don't get action on a known violation in 1 year...It is closed automatically and we need to start over...

Benjamin said:
Iagree, but now there are 2 violations that were written 2 years ago that are still not closed., the 2 hr separation between occupancies and the additional bathroom/I'm looking to close them out which means I have to sign off on the resolutions when no remedy was accomplished....that's my dilemma Unless I just sign a correspondence that states we are honoring the CO that was issued in 2005.
Click to expand...
 
The "V" word is used a lot in NY - the state Codes Division is empowered to grant relief from building code requirements. It's not all bad though, twice I've had applications in front of them and they need plans, specs, engineering, a thorough application process, and a hearing. Both were successful, I supported both actions.
 
Just noticed this old thread. But I ran into a similar situation before and found that an restaurant with an OL of less than 50 is a "B", same as the office was so there would not have been a change of Occupancy. I don't recall the exact date but there was a period of transition where the applicant could chose which version of the code to build under.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top