B to R-2

[Mr. Inspector]

I just got the evaluation cals for a change of occupancy using IBC 3412 form the desiger and it works without sprinklers but the problem is this section:

IBC 3412.3.2 Compliance with other codes. Buildings that are evaluated in accordance with this section shall comply with the International Fire Code and the International Property Maintenance Code.

So in the IFC:

IFC 102.3 Change of use or occupancy. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would place the structure in a different division of the same group or occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such structure is made to comply with the requirements of this code and the International Building Code. Subject to the approval of the fire code official, the use or occupancy of an existing structure shall be allowed to be changed and the structure is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements of this code and the International Building Code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.

IFC 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.

The designer said he used IBC 3412 in other areas and got the ok from the BCO's to do this without sprinklers. Does anyone know some where in the IFC that this can be done?

I dont understand how the IBC can allow R-2 without sprionklers by using IBC 3412 but the IFC doesn't? I thought they where supposed to be compatible?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Read the whole section

102.3 Change of use or occupancy.

No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would place the structure in a different division of the same group or occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such structure is made to comply with the requirements of this code and the International Building Code . Subject to the approval of the fire code official , the use or occupancy of an existing structure shall be allowed to be changed and the structure is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements of this code and the International Building Code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.



You have the evaluation using 3412 that says sprinklers are not necessary .

 

[Mr. Inspector]

"provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use."

How would I know that it is less hazardous. 3412.1 says maintain or increase current degree of safty. It might be just the safty is just maintained and not increased than the existing use.

3412.1 Compliance. The provisions of this section are intended to maintain or increase the current degree of public safety, health and general welfare in existing buildings while permitting repair, alteration, addition and change of occupancy without requiring full compliance with Chapters 2 through 33, or Sections 3401.3, and 3403 through 3409, except where compliance with other provisions of this code is specifically required in this section.

 

[RLGA]

Referencing 2012 IFC.

Read Section 903.2, it states, "Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12." See underlined portion.

You need to be looking at Chapter 11, "Construction Requirements for Existing Buildings." Section 1103.5 addresses sprinkler systems and it does not require retrofitting a Group R-2 in an existing building. However, Section 1103.7.6 may require a manual fire alarm system.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

No such chapter in 2009 IFC which we use here

 

[Mr. Inspector]

mtlog cabin, R-2 is more hazarous than B.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Chapter 46 in the 2009 IFC

 

[mtlogcabin]

RLGA is correct the IFC and the IBC Chapter 9 sprinkler requirements only apply to new construction.

 

[kilitact]

102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.

 

[cda]

What is the difference between new construction, and remodel, when a change of occupancy / use is in play

 

[RLGA]

What is the difference between new construction, and remodel, when a change of occupancy / use is in play

The IFC states"new buildings and structures," not new construction. An existing building is not a new building or structure. Therefore, if the building is existing, whether it is being remodeled or going through a change of occupancy, the requirements of Chapter 11 (2012 IBC) or Chapter 46 (2009IBC) apply.

 

[cda]

STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed.

If you add a new interior wall to an existing building, is it a structure?

 

[RLGA]

STRUCTURE. That which is built or constructed. If you add a new interior wall to an existing building, is it a structure?

In the context of a building code, all buildings are structures, but not all structures are buildings. For example,fences over 7 feet high (a structure, not a building) are regulated by the code and require a permit. Other structures (not buildings) regulated by the code include retaining walls over 4 feet high, water tanks over 5000 gallons, sidewalks and driveways over 30 inches above adjacent grade, telecommunication and broadcast towers, and automatic vehicular gates(when not integrated into a building).

 

[steveray]

Isn't CH 11 still accessibility?.....

The IFC states"new buildings and structures," not new construction. An existing building is not a new building or structure. Therefore, if the building is existing, whether it is being remodeled or going through a change of occupancy, the requirements of Chapter 11 (2012 IBC) or Chapter 46 (2009IBC) apply.

 

[RLGA]

The reference is to the IFC.

 

[cda]

So I guess if a canopy is added to an existing building, the canopy is not new, it is existing

Codes, codes, everywhere there's codes

in' up the scenery, breakin' my mind

Do this, don't do that, can't you read the code

 

[mtlogcabin]

The building was evaluated as an R-2 under 3412.2.1 and scored that it was acceptable without sprinklers.

3412.3.2 sends you to the IFC not for sprinkler requirements but to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 46 (2009 IFC) for an existing R-2 occupancy, specifically Section 4603 has to be met.

 

[RLGA]

So I guess if a canopy is added to an existing building, the canopy is not new, it is existing Codes, codes, everywhere there's codes

in' up the scenery, breakin' my mind

Do this, don't do that, can't you read the code

The building is existing; the canopy is new, but it is not a structure. Construction added to an existing building must comply with the IBC; thus, the awning will need to comply with Section 3105. But the building to which it is attached does not need to be brought up to the requirements of the current code.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Referencing 2012 IFC.Read Section 903.2, it states, "Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12." See underlined portion.

You need to be looking at Chapter 11, "Construction Requirements for Existing Buildings." Section 1103.5 addresses sprinkler systems and it does not require retrofitting a Group R-2 in an existing building. However, Section 1103.7.6 may require a manual fire alarm system.

This is odd that you can't use IFC 903 when they are installing new sprinklers in an exisiting building or to require them. But what about if was existing before codes were adopted and has no C. O.. This may be the case with this building because they can only use IBC 3412 if it was built before codes were adopted. See #2:

102.1 Construction and design provisions. The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to:

1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of this code.

2. Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in existence at the time of adoption of this code.

3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions when required in Chapter 46.

4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions which, in the opinion of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.

 

[mtlogcabin]

A building that was constructed prior to the adoption of a code is a legal building

The date used in IBC 3412 is set by the adopting ordinance and does not have to coincide with when codes where effective within a jurisdiction

Since we are a small jurisdiction and have a lot of buildings that where permitted and constructed with approved code violations due to the political climate back then we choose to use the date the first I-code was adopted in the jurisdiction.

3412.2 Applicability.

Structures existing prior to [DATE TO BE INSERTED BY THE JURISDICTION. NOTE: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS DATE COINCIDE WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF BUILDING CODES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION], in which there is work involving additions, alterations or changes of occupancy shall be made to comply with the requirements of this section or the provisions of Sections 3403 through 3409. The provisions in Sections 3412.2.1 through 3412.2.5 shall apply to existing occupancies that will continue to be, or are proposed to be, in Groups A, B, E, F, M, R, S and U. These provisions shall not apply to buildings with occupancies in Group H or I.

 

[RLGA]

This is odd that you can't use IFC 903 when they are installing new sprinklers in an exisiting building or to require them. But what about if was existing before codes were adopted and has no C. O.. This may be the case with this building because they can only use IBC 3412 if it was built before codes were adopted. See #2:102.1 Construction and design provisions. The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to:

1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of this code.

2. Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in existence at the time of adoption of this code.

3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions when required in Chapter 46.

4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions which, in the opinion of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.

Item #2 of Section 102.1 uses "this code," which means the 2009 IBC specifically. If a building or structure was built illegally (i.e. Without permits or with violations), then the building or structure must comply with the currently adopted code. Section 3412 of the IBC is intended to address the time before a code was first adopted. But, as mtlogcabin states, it could be whatever date the jurisdiction wants to use.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Item #2 of Section 102.1 uses "this code," which means the 2009 IBC specifically. If a building or structure was built illegally (i.e. Without permits or with violations), then the building or structure must comply with the currently adopted code. Section 3412 of the IBC is intended to address the time before a code was first adopted. But, as mtlogcabin states, it could be whatever date the jurisdiction wants to use.

This is in the 2009 IFC.

The state is the jurisdiction. Codes started in 2004. State L & I did inspections and gave C. O.'s only for comercal buildings before this date but a lot of the smaller buildings were missed and have no C. O..

If there is no C. O. it is not a Legaly occupied building (state law) if built after 1927.

 

[RLGA]

The Chapter 1 requirement is standard in the International Code, so each reference to "this code" refers to the specific code in which it appears.

It appears that the state is in a quandary. It appears that if a CO was required after 1927, then the state has been violating the law for 77 years by not issuing COs to all buildings. It would appear that any building owner that was not issued a CO by the state and is being forced to bring an existing building up to current code could use the "selective enforcement" defense.