BCBC decision - discussion

[Inspector Gadget]

I'm scratching my head over this BC Building Code tribunal decision.

BCAB 1935 – Determination of subsidiary or major occupancy

Summary of September 2024 B.C. Building Appeal Board decision.

www2.gov.bc.ca

"The brewhouse is considered to be a Group F, Division 3 occupancy. It has an area of 211m2 and a staff of 3 persons. The tap room is considered to be a Group A, Division 2 occupancy. It has an area of 235m2 and an occupant load in excess of 70 persons. The design includes only a series of stanchions and a removable belt as a separation between the two primary spaces."

The AHJ deemed the A2 occupancy to make the structure a part 3 building.

The appeal board overturned this decision.

Frankly, I don't grasp the logic. Even if the taproom is occasional use, the 70 person occupant load (combined with the alcohol consumption) make it a slam-dunk Part 3.... in my mind.

Our office dealt with a remarkably similar situation where a brewpub was proposed as a new tenancy in an existing Part 9, D-occupancy building. Both our office and the OFM deemed the new use A2, even though the actual "consumption area" wasn't as large as the brewing area and offices related to the microbrewery.

I wouldn't ask for fire separations, as one occupancy is ancillary to the other. But I would consider this a Part 3 building, with all its requirements.

 

[Plumb-bob]

I'm scratching my head over this BC Building Code tribunal decision.

BCAB 1935 – Determination of subsidiary or major occupancy

Summary of September 2024 B.C. Building Appeal Board decision.

www2.gov.bc.ca

"The brewhouse is considered to be a Group F, Division 3 occupancy. It has an area of 211m2 and a staff of 3 persons. The tap room is considered to be a Group A, Division 2 occupancy. It has an area of 235m2 and an occupant load in excess of 70 persons. The design includes only a series of stanchions and a removable belt as a separation between the two primary spaces."

The AHJ deemed the A2 occupancy to make the structure a part 3 building.

The appeal board overturned this decision.

Frankly, I don't grasp the logic. Even if the taproom is occasional use, the 70 person occupant load (combined with the alcohol consumption) make it a slam-dunk Part 3.... in my mind.

Our office dealt with a remarkably similar situation where a brewpub was proposed as a new tenancy in an existing Part 9, D-occupancy building. Both our office and the OFM deemed the new use A2, even though the actual "consumption area" wasn't as large as the brewing area and offices related to the microbrewery.

I wouldn't ask for fire separations, as one occupancy is ancillary to the other. But I would consider this a Part 3 building, with all its requirements.

Im with you and would consider this to be a Pt3.

 

[Plumb-bob]

NBC language: Major occupancy means the principal occupancy for which a building or part thereof is used or intended to be used, and shall be deemed to include the subsidiary occupancies that are an integral part of the principal occupancy. The major occupancy classifications used in this Code are as follows:

BC language: Major occupancy means the principal occupancy for which a building or part thereof is used or intended to be used, and shall be deemed to include the subsidiary occupancies that are an integral part of the principal occupancy. The major occupancy classifications used in this Code are as follows:

In national code, you would be correct. It is an A2. In BC code, they are correct. It would be an F3.

Both definitions you posted are identical, so how can you come up with a different determination?

 

[tmurray]

Both definitions you posted are identical, so how can you come up with a different determination?

Good point. I missed it in my quick review. I have deleted my other post so we don't lead anyone down the wrong path.

 

[tmurray]

I think part of it might be what does "integral" mean. In my mind integral means that it cannot be extracted from the major occupancy. There are plenty of breweries that do not include a bar, so it is clearly not integral to the F3 use.

Contrast this with concessions in a theater. Concessions are integral to the theater itself, and cannot be extracted. Finding a theater without concessions is very rare.

We had a similar thing where a dollar store had the national headquarters of the dollar store attached to it. The designer tried to argue that it was part of the same occupancy. We determined it was clearly not integral since there is not a national headquarters attached to each dollar store and not all national headquarters have dollar stores attached to them.