Addition or level 2 alteration?

[dsisson]

Long time listener, first time poster.
I'm an architect, working on a small apartment house in Rhode Island. This is a 2 story - 5 unit building, with an unoccupied attic. Our project is to expand one of the 2nd floor units into the attic, making it larger. We would install a new stair from level 2 to level 3 to do this. The existing building does NOT have sprinklers.

We were rejected by the fire department, they referenced NFPA 101 chapter 31 that points to Chapter 24 for requirements for egress windows. Ch 24 requires that egress window sills be a maximum of 20 feet from the ground - we are about 27 feet. We tried for a variance but we were rejected - the AHJ stated that they couldn't get a ladder to these windows due to power lines. I had to wonder if they could thusly fight a fire at ANY third story in the city, but again, we lost the battle with the variance.

RI is working to release new codes in December, including introducing the 2021 IEBC for the first time. I was planning on doing a review under IEBC to see if there were any opportunities to do this project without adding sprinklers - but I bumped into the classification of work. When we expand into a previously unoccupied space - is it considered an "addition" to the structure? We aren't making it bigger - but we are increasing the occupied floor space. I do think the project would qualify as a Level 2 alteration, since we are remodeling the entire attic and affecting a portion of the 2nd floor - but less than 50% of the total floor area.

EDIT: from reading the IECC - it looks like it doesn't matter - a level 2 renovation and/or an addition would require sprinklers.

 

[steveray]

[A]ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area, number of stories or height of a building or structure.

Level 2 shouldn't require it...CT has a gimmie cause we hate people...

And welcome to THE Forum my neighbor to the East!

 

[jar546]

You are right to look at the IEBC before Rhode Island adopts the 2021 edition. Converting an unoccupied attic into habitable space does not change the occupancy classification since it remains Group R 2, but it does change the use within that group. You are taking a non habitable space and turning it into living space, which increases the life safety requirements.

Once the attic becomes habitable, the building becomes three stories. The IEBC defines that as an addition because the number of stories increased, even if the roofline stays the same. That change pulls in IBC Section 903.2.8, which requires sprinklers in all R 2 buildings with dwelling units above the second story.

Your Level 2 call is correct, but that classification still points back to IBC 903 for sprinklers. The fire department’s position on rescue windows follows NFPA 101. Rescue openings must be accessible to approved apparatus, and if power lines block access, the opening no longer meets its intent.

If sprinklers are not an option, the only alternative would be to keep the attic non habitable or design it as a true mezzanine open to the story below that does not count as another story. Once you create an occupied third story, sprinklers are required throughout.

 

[dsisson]

You are right to look at the IEBC before Rhode Island adopts the 2021 edition. Converting an unoccupied attic into habitable space does not change the occupancy classification since it remains Group R 2, but it does change the use within that group. You are taking a non habitable space and turning it into living space, which increases the life safety requirements.

Once the attic becomes habitable, the building becomes three stories. The IEBC defines that as an addition because the number of stories increased, even if the roofline stays the same. That change pulls in IBC Section 903.2.8, which requires sprinklers in all R 2 buildings with dwelling units above the second story.

Your Level 2 call is correct, but that classification still points back to IBC 903 for sprinklers. The fire department’s position on rescue windows follows NFPA 101. Rescue openings must be accessible to approved apparatus, and if power lines block access, the opening no longer meets its intent.

If sprinklers are not an option, the only alternative would be to keep the attic non habitable or design it as a true mezzanine open to the story below that does not count as another story. Once you create an occupied third story, sprinklers are required throughout.

Thank you - that was my understanding too. We have successfully permitted similar projects without sprinklers when the attic was previously inhabited (there are plenty of them that haven't been inhabited for decades, but once were...) and also by using IBC Chapter 34 - 3412 "Compliance Alternatives".

But to clarify - expanding into previously unoccupied space WOULD count as an "Addition"?

It's interesting, because RI passed a state law last year requiring that 3, & 4 family be moved to the IRC. I think the intent is to NOT require sprinklers in 1-4 family and to reduce other requirements such as stairs and accessibility in small multi-families. This will NOT be in this new code cycle since it came too late to get included. It seems that the State Code Council is pushing towards more sprinklers with the adoption of the IEBC, so I suspect they'll just require sprinklers for 3 & 4 in the IRC. The state legislators didn't clarify WHY they wanted to put 3 & 4 into the IRC.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Thank you - that was my understanding too. We have successfully permitted similar projects without sprinklers when the attic was previously inhabited (there are plenty of them that haven't been inhabited for decades, but once were...) and also by using IBC Chapter 34 - 3412 "Compliance Alternatives".

But to clarify - expanding into previously unoccupied space WOULD count as an "Addition"?

It's interesting, because RI passed a state law last year requiring that 3, & 4 family be moved to the IRC. I think the intent is to NOT require sprinklers in 1-4 family and to reduce other requirements such as stairs and accessibility in small multi-families. This will NOT be in this new code cycle since it came too late to get included. It seems that the State Code Council is pushing towards more sprinklers with the adoption of the IEBC, so I suspect they'll just require sprinklers for 3 & 4 in the IRC. The state legislators didn't clarify WHY they wanted to put 3 & 4 into the IRC.

Was the previous unoccupied space finished out and included in the certificate of occupancy?

I was called in on a similar situation is a small town a few years ago. The town had built a new 2-story library building in 1985, but they didn't have enough money to build out the second floor so it was left unfinished, and the approved plans said the second floor was "Unfinished -- Future." A number of years passed, and the town came up with some money and wanted to finish out the second floor -- as community meeting space, not as library stacks and/or reading room(s).

Since 1985 there had been multiple code changes, including the switch from a state code based on BOCA to a state code based on the IBC, and the adoption of an amended version of the IEBC. The architects proposed to just finish out the second floor space as a Level 2 alteration, and call it "Library Expansion."

However, in consultation with the fire marshal, we determined that the second floor had never been subject to a certificate of occupancy, and therefore could not be treated simply as an alteration (of any level) to existing [lawfully occupied] space. The certificate of occupancy for the original building just said "Library." But the requirement in the code from 1985 said the CofO was:

119.1 New Buildings: No building or structure hereafter erected shall be used or
occupied in whole or part until the certificate of use and occupancy shall have been
issued by the building official. No certificate of use and occupancy shall be issued by
the building official until he certifies that such building or structure substantially
conforms to the provisions of this code and further rules adopted thereunder.
. . .
119.6 Contents of certificate. When a building or structure is entitled thereto, the
building official shall issue a certificate of use and occupancy within ten (10) days after
written applications. The certificate shall certify compliance with the provisions of this
code and the purpose for which the building or structure may be used in its several
parts. The certificate of use and occupancy shall specify: the use group, in accordance
with the provisions of Article 2;the fire grading, as defined in Article 2 and Table 902;
the maximum live load on all floors as prescribed in Article 7; the occupancy load in
the building and all parts thereof as defined in Article 2 and Article 6; and any special
stipulations and conditions of the building permit.

Obviously, if an entire story hasn't been finished out and has no mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems installed, the building official in 1985 could not certify that the second floor substantially conformed to the provisions of the code. So we concluded that the CofO did not include the second floor, and that the finishing out of the second floor was an addition rather than a Level 2 alteration.

More recently, I reviewed plans to "alter" a 2-story building with commercial on the ground floor and two apartments on the second floor. Part of the "alteration" included expanding one of the apartments to capture and use the attic as living space. The architect declared it as a Level 2 alteration. We viewed it as an addition.