C/O reqd? vacated bldg.

[BSSTG]

Greetings all,

2009 IBC/IFC applicable

A bldg housing a legal daycare was abandoned when the IRS came in. The bldg remains vacant for a year or so. Another daycare moves in. Since the original daycare was legal, and there was no change of usage, I didn't require upgrades to 09 Code standards which would have required sprinklers and alarms. Tx does not require those fire protection features either.

So now the daycare wants to move to another bldg. Previous usage of this bldg was Group B. So now requirements kick in as it is a change of usage. No one is questioning this. However the owner of the daycare went to City Council in the hopes of getting a variance or amending the Code (which is fine with me). As usual Council kicks the can to another advisory group being formed thereby kicking the can down the road a mile or 2. So that's on hold.

I should also mention that Council had a closed door session to talk about Code Enforcement after that last meeting. A couple of days after this last Council meeting the Mayor calls and leaves a lengthy message on my phone. He said the next time a situation came up with a business moving into a vacated building that to let him know as the building should be brought up to Code even though there is no change of usage.

What say you folks? If the building is vacated, does it need to be brought up to Code even if the usage is the same from one tenant to the next?

I feel if the building usage has not changed, then Code upgrades are not required. Good grief, I've got so many folks poed at me for requiring this and that, and now they will make it worse.

thanks

BS

 

[cda]

Agree new building needs to meet code

State does require smoke alarms not sure if they require a full blown system

What edition IFC are you under

 

[cda]

Mayor needs to go by whatever code he voted for as far as existing buildings

Are you also the Bo, forgot??

 

[fatboy]

Was no change of building usage in the first case, no problem.

Second scenario, definetly a change of use, code upgrades for new use. Your Council should not have even heard the case.........

 

[BSSTG]

Was no change of building usage in the first case, no problem. Second scenario, definetly a change of use, code upgrades for new use. Your Council should not have even heard the case.........

I agree. From what I'm hearing from the mayor's office is that their opinion is different on the 1st scenario though. Although, I have heard the argument that a C/O is to be required unless the building is continuously occupied even if there is no change of usage. What I do know is that I'm tired of taking the arrows over this stuff. I wear all of the hats here including fire inspector. It makes for a rough day sometimes!

Have A Great Day!

BSSTG

 

[cda]

what edition of code are you under

 

[steveray]

If they want to make people upgrade vacant buildings upon reoccupation, tell them to pass a law as the code does not do that....You were/are correct.....

 

[Frank]

That seems consistant with what we have here, periods of vacancy do not result in loss of existing status. Local adoptions may vary.

It is hard enough to get old buildings back into use if full code updates were required you would end up with alot of abandoned buildings--think Detroit.

 

[Mark K]

Submit a proposal to the City Council to change the local ordinance to require a new CO if the building was un-occupied. Point out that if you impose such a requirement that is not supported by a code requirement that the applicant could challenge your ruling in court and win. Consider talking to the City attorney to verify he supports your recommendation.

 

[fatboy]

We do have an ordinance in our zoning code that drives new requirements from the zoning side after 180 days of non-occupancy, regardless of any changes of occupancy. They did recently get a little (lot) pushback on the same occupancy issue, pretty wobbly legs, think they ended up buckling.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Do you have a business license procedure where the bldg and fire dept walk through a new business in an existing building and approve the facility based on the code requirements? If yes you could issue a new CO for that business.

No where does a CO expire because a building/business has been vacated.

What you are going through and what Austin did requiring "visit-ability" for SFR's are making me have second thoughts about Texas.

 

[SCBO1]

Consider adopting the IEBC which is used for alternatives to remodeling and repairs made to existing buildings. It will not allow you to make the structure less safe.

The second building, B-occupancy will require a change in occupancy to an occupancy-E most likely, but may not need to be sprinkered depending on the rooms exiting conditions and your current adopted code.

pc1

 

[BSSTG]

That seems consistant with what we have here, periods of vacancy do not result in loss of existing status. Local adoptions may vary.It is hard enough to get old buildings back into use if full code updates were required you would end up with alot of abandoned buildings--think Detroit.

My sentiments exactly

BS

 

[north star]

= = =



cda,

FWIW, ...Post # 1 indicates the edition you are asking about !

BSSTG,

You could make copies of the applicable codes sections in the IBC \ IFC

that state that no upgrades are required, and [ possibly ] give them to

the Mayor.........Just sayin'...



+ + +

 

[rogerpa]

The C of O belongs to building, not the business.

 

[JBI]

Code Officials are bound by the laws that give them their authority, period. IF the enabling legislation requires the upgrades, then they are required. IF the local law defers to the code text then that is your guide.

IF an elected official wants to change the way business is done then they should look at the enabling legislation and adjust it accordingly.

 

[BSSTG]

Greetings,

Well I spent some time with our city attorney this morning. He is in agreement with some of you folks suggestions. We will look to do an ordinance stipulating when a new C/O will be required based on the amount of time the building was vacated. He said that is not uncommon here in Tx.

BS