Change of Occupancy opinions?

[mtlogcabin]

2009 IEBC

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. In the purpose or level of activity within a building that involves a change in application of the requirements of this code.

What would a change of "Level of Activity" be?

Example an A-2 restaurant beer and wine with meals only built under the UBC just under 5,000 sq ft so no sprinklers required. Building has been vacant and for sale for 3 + years.

New owner will have a full alchohol license that includes gambling limited to 10 machines. OL will actually be reduced by about 24 people

Would you consider this an increase in the level of activity and require compliance with Chapter 9 of the IBC? sprinklers and notification.

please give reasons for your opinion for or against.

 

[north star]

~ & ~

I would consider the "Level of Activity" to change [ increase ] with the

gambling machines.....IMO, "Level of Activity" means moving around

within the building areas, ...going from the gambling machines to the

bar to the restroom to the Dining Area and any combination thereof.

That said, ...if the OL actually decreases, I probably would not require

the sprinkling, as long as, sufficient MOE components were installed

and actually maintained.

~ & ~

 

[Mac]

I agree with NStar - if the OL is reduced, its hard to argue that there is more activity....

 

[steveray]

A2 to partial A3 maybe...."casino" with noisy machines and flashing lights that may be more distracting to the occupants if something starts to go bad than it would be just sitting down and having dinner (Although A3 is less restrictive in Ch9 it seems)....It would really require alot of discussion and information to make that decision, they are both pretty close (to me) I think it would be fairly easy to justify either position, depends on the condition of the building also, is it already pushing the limits or past what is allowable? Maybe it is the best time to upgrade.....

 

[cda]

Does it create a change in application of the requirements??

I would not say that people moving around more is what they are saying

Can you defend your position in court ? And have you adopted iebc

 

[hlfireinspector]

Along the same path, Existing A-2 ( sit down and eat restaurant) no sprinklers but does have fire alarm (occupant load >100, footage > 5000 ft). They are renting the building out after hours for parties. They are not servering food at this party and actually the person leasing the building is subleting to 3rd person. Bouncer at door searching persons entering. Police called more than once. Change of use????????

 

[north star]

~ + ~

hlfireinspector,

Document, ...document, ...document, and send copies of any violations

to the building owner [ with a verified return receipt ]......If your city

council does not already know, apprise them also, so that when; NOT

if, something happens, you will have an established paper trail to CYA,

if you or your dept. are part of this.

I would not consider it a change of use, but a violation of the occupant

loading [ RE: Section 1004.2. `06 IBC ].

~ + ~

 

[mtlogcabin]

The "casino" portion is required by zoning to be in a separate room from the dining area. There will not be a "bar" area that people will sit at so I do not believe there is an increase in the level of activity. The operators have an existing restaurant in the county that they have been operating fo 15 years and this will be the same setup so my concerns are minimal. I just don't want to miss something or give an appearance of not being consistant with the application of the code since I have required sprinklers be installed in other buildings due to the "Level of activity" being increased.

 

[steveray]

Strict reading says change in level...Correct? Not increase in level......Not that I would want to push that, but just to play devil's advocate....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

If they have dancing would that be a increasae of activity?

 

[steveray]

If they have dancing would that be a increasae of activity?

BALLROOM? OR TECHNO? Those kids move pretty fast....