Change of Occupancy Florida Style

[jar546]

This is the definition in Florida. Does it match up with the definition in your state?

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. Either of the following shall be considered as a change of occupancy where this code requires a greater degree of safety, accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation or sanitation than is existing in the current building or structure:

1. 1.Any change in the occupancy classification of a building or structure.
2. 2.Any change in the purpose of, or a change in the level of activity within, a building or structure.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Our definition (from the IEBC as adopted):

[A] CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. Any of the following shall be considered as a change of occupancy where the current International Building Code requires a greater degree of safety, accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation or sanitation than is existing in the current building or structure:

1.Any change in the occupancy classification of a building or structure.
2. Any change in the purpose of, or a change in the level of activity within, a building or structure.
3. A change of use.

[A] CHANGE OF USE. A change in the use of a building or a portion of a building, within the same group classification, for which there is a change in application of the code requirements.

 

[jar546]

Our definition (from the IEBC as adopted):

I posted this in the Commercial Building Code section, not the Existing Building. Since you are posting from the IEBC and not the IBC like I did, I will match your post and put the FBC Existing definition here.

[A] CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. Any of the following shall be considered as a change of occupancy where the current Florida Building Code, Building requires a greater degree of accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, safety, ventilation or sanitation than is existing in the current building or structure:

1. Any change in the occupancy classification of a building or structure.
2. Any change in the purpose of, or a change in the level of activity within, a building or structure.
3. A change of use.

[A] CHANGE OF USE. A change in the use of a building or a portion of a building, within the same group classification, for which there is a change in application of the code requirements.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

To be fair, you just said "This is the definition in Florida," but you didn't say what code. Since there can't be a change in occupancy in a new building, which has not yet had any lawful occupancy, I thought it reasonable to look in the IEBC, which is where the ICC family of codes actually regulates changes of occupancy.

However, now that you clarify that you were citing the Florida IBC, I checked our version of the IBC and -- much to my surprise -- the definition matches what you originally quoted, and does NOT match the definition in the IEBC.

Basically, another failure on the part of the ICC to properly coordinate among the code books. This is a potential problem, and it's not the first time I have encountered it.

 

[jar546]

To be fair, you just said "This is the definition in Florida," but you didn't say what code. Since there can't be a change in occupancy in a new building, which has not yet had any lawful occupancy, I thought it reasonable to look in the IEBC, which is where the ICC family of codes actually regulates changes of occupancy.

However, now that you clarify that you were citing the Florida IBC, I checked our version of the IBC and -- much to my surprise -- the definition matches what you originally quoted, and does NOT match the definition in the IEBC.

Basically, another failure on the part of the ICC to properly coordinate among the code books. This is a potential problem, and it's not the first time I have encountered it.

The difference between the "Change of Occupancy" definitions in the IBC and IEBC is intentional because each code has a different focus. The IBC deals primarily with new construction and significant alterations, so it includes stricter requirements for changes, including a separate "change of use" provision. In contrast, the IEBC is designed specifically for existing buildings and takes a more flexible approach, only requiring upgrades when the new occupancy requires a higher level of safety, accessibility, or structural strength. This allows existing buildings to be modified without fully complying with the standards for new construction.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Scoping is different from definitions. IMHO there is no excuse for two different books in the same family of codes to define the same term differently.

Where the IEBC is adopted, the starting point for any alteration or change of use is the IEBC.

IEBC Scoping:

[A] 101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to
the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and
relocation of existing buildings.

Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and
townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane
in height with a separate means of egress, and their accessory
structures not more than three stories above grade
plane in height, shall comply with this code or the International Residential Code.

The IBC scoping sends us right to the IEBC for alterations:

[A] 101.4.7 Existing buildings. The provisions of the International
Existing Building Code shall apply to matters governing
the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to
and relocation of existing buildings.

So the starting point for any alterations, changes of occupancy, and additions is the IEBC. Once we're in the IEBC, we look at the IBC only when the IEBC sends us there, and we then look only at the section(s) the IEBC sends us to. The extent to which the IBC applies to alterations depends on which of the three compliance methods the designer chooses to follow. For changes of use (which may or may not also involve alterations), we need to look at the IBC when we are sent there by chapter 10 of the IEBC.