• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

2006 IBC 3410 evaluation on non-separated mixed occupancy

= = | = = | = =



I, for one, ...would like to know what "The Cow" had to say on this

issue, if you decide to contact them.

Sooooooooo, ...did we abuse you too much on your first outing ? :devil

We really DO desire to assist everyone where we can ! 8-)



= = | = = | = =
 
north star said:
= = | = = | = =

I, for one, ...would like to know what "The Cow" had to say on this

issue, if you decide to contact them.

Sooooooooo, ...did we abuse you too much on your first outing ? :devil

We really DO desire to assist everyone where we can ! 8-)



= = | = = | = =
Click to expand...
Hay it only took 49 responses, not 100,, like ???????
 
"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. "

Ask your BO....If they want sprinklers they get sprinklers, does not sound like a less hazardous use.....
 
= = | = = | = =

**steveray**,

Code section & IBC edition please for **cballinger**........IMO,

it will help build his/her case in determining which course of action

to follow, and to assist his/her BO.

Thanks!

= = | = = | = =
 
steveray said:
"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. "Ask your BO....If they want sprinklers they get sprinklers, does not sound like a less hazardous use.....
Click to expand...
I AM the local "Building Official". That language in Section 3406.1 was deleted in our State of Indiana amendments. For a change of occupancy, they are required to meet current code for new construction or pass a 3410 evaluation.
 
*By the way, I should note, no work is being held up for this. ;) That's why this is tough, though. The State's Building Law Compliance Officer doesn't want to give an interpretation (I wonder why?). I know if I send them for a State variance it could be a waste of time if I don't have something to back up my interpretation. The State's Commission would then likely rule no variance is required and it would be a waste of time (time = $) for the owner.
 
= = | = = | = =

Do you have any additional support from a Fire code Official

[ possibly ], or are you the only one providing a different

opinion than "them \ they" ?

IMO, ...you already have enough written code language to

support your position.

If you get turned down, with you maintaining your position,

...then what ?.............Do you have an alternative plan for

protecting the occupants of the "proposed" establishment,

or another design approach to offer ?



= = | = = | = =
 
Well he is the BO, so to me if he says you shall sprinkle

They either do it or go through the appeals process!!!

Another route could be require a technical report from someone the BO approves and paid by the developer
 
At the moment the inspector doesn't agree with me. Because of the inner workings of our department, I can't send them for a variance at this time. It would be too much to try to explain here how our dept works and our relationship with the State building commission. And because I can't find some code reference that really explains which of us is interpreting it right, I'm hoping I can get a technical opinion from ICC and maybe if they say I'm interpreting it correctly, maybe I can get the inspector on my side and we can send them for a variance to be heard by the commission. I'll update here if I get a response from ICC. Thanks again all. :)
 
They also would already have options besides sprinklers- they could provide fire separation between the F-1 and A-2, but they don't want to do either...
 
I hate the word

Variance!!!!!!!!!

Sorry to hear about the working conditions, been there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top