Change of use question...and minor rant

[Sifu]

What is the difference between a preschool and a school in the IBC?

Given an existing "day care" permitted under the '97 UBC. A proposal permitted under the 2018 IEBC is changing it to a "preschool", with minor alterations. The scope of work provided by the DP tell us this, then says it is not a "change of use". Of course the existing building code is not referenced or used in any way other than them telling me it isn't a change of use.

The existing day care looks like it met the '97 UBC for E-div. 3, which had the OL ratio at 35. They now increase the OL, with the classrooms at 20-net. This would seem to be the exact scenario outlined in the 2018 IEBC, section 1001.2.1 where there is no classification or group change, but there is a change in the application of the code with an increased OL.

It seems so simple to correctly identify this as a change of use, identify the alteration level, apply the appropriate codes and provide the correct ventilation per IEBC 1008 (which they likely meet since every classroom has openings to the exterior). Is there some code application difference between a preschool and a school?

And or course, since they don't use the IEBC at all, there is no mention of IEBC 305.7. I would think the changes contain an area of primary function, so the accessible route would need to meet the requirements of this section. They are adding two new accessible toilet rooms, to the existing 9 non-compliant toilet rooms, so they likely meet the 20% threshold.

Is it just too much to ask to have them at least pretend they know the IEBC exists?

 

[Joe.B]

What is the difference between a preschool and a school

The toilets, drinking fountains, and coat hooks are taller.

 

[mtlogcabin]

What is the difference between a preschool and a school in the IBC?

There is no difference as far as the code is concerned with regards to occupancy classification.

A Group E occupancy could be a school, day care facility or an infant care facility, which is normally classified as a Group I-4 institutional occupancy, but may be classified as a Group E occupancy if there are no more than 100 children, all 21/2 years of age or less and each room is on the level of exit discharge with a direct exit to the exterior.

IFC Chapter 11 has requirements that are retroactive to group "E" occupancies you might want to look at.

 

[steveray]

Is it just too much to ask to have them at least pretend they know the IEBC exists?

Typically...Sounds like a COO....

 

[mtlogcabin]

but there is a change in the application of the code with an increased OL.

1997 approved for OL of 35 now an OL of 20. How does a reduction in the OL trigger any change in the application of the code.

 

[Sifu]

The project is not a change of occupancy classification, but it is a change of use. They have assigned the OL as a classroom at 20-net, where before it was assigned an OL ratio of 35, which is correct for the '97 then and now i the IBC. So it was used as an E-day care, now they kept the classification as an E-day care but assign it as 20-net which indicates it is not actually an E-day-care. I don't know of a classification that would fall in between. It seems they are trying to label it an E-day care to avoid the need to consider it a "change of use" and skirt the requirements.

Basically they are probably a level 2 alteration, with a change of use from a day care to a school. I say probably because they don't provide that path, or any path, out of the IEBC (this is my rant part).

 

[Sifu]

1997 approved for OL of 35 now an OL of 20. How does a reduction in the OL trigger any change in the application of the code.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The '97 UBC required the MOE to be based on an OL of 1 per 35sf². They now propose an OL of 1 per 20sf². The calculated OL is going up for the entire facility because they propose 20-net, and in individual rooms, some of which now have a calculated OL > 50 but only one compliant exit path. To me this is a change in the application of the code. Mechanical ventilation is also required to be based on the new calculated OL.

However to further explain my confusion, IF THEY PROVIDED a code path that said this is a level 2 alteration, with a change of use (not classification) I'm still not sure the existing MOE would be non-compliant because as a change of use 1005 only applies to a change of classification and a level 2 alteration need only comply where a shared corridor exists. I think I would then go back to a level 1 alteration which requires that the "level of protection" for the means of egress must be maintained, and with the added occupant load it isn't.

 

[Sifu]

And, in one of the rooms, shown as existing now has an OL > 50 due to the change to 20-net, but no other work. So does adding the occupants without any other physical work to the room give it a pass since there is no work area? Or is the act of increasing the OL effectively make it a work area?

 

[Joe.B]

I bet if you ask the Fire Marshal, they will say that they are not allowed to exceed their previously approved occupant load. If they are submitting plans showing a higher load, then they will have to provide appropriate MOE. I don't think they would care what codes you cite; they just want it done. That's how it would go here, FM would tell me "Fix it". And I would get to be the messenger.

 

[mtlogcabin]

As you can see the UBC was 20 sq ft per person OL. Not where the 35 number came from.

1997 UBC

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I would consider it to be a change of use. Daycare is a special sub-group under Group E:

305.2 Group E, day care facilities. This group includes buildings
and structures or portions thereof occupied by more than
five children older than 21/2 years of age who receive educational,
supervision or personal care services for fewer than 24
hours per day.
https://x.com/JewishWarrior13/status/1932424144315945006/photo/1

The Commentary expands on this:

Group E day care occupancies include facilities
intended to be used for the care and supervision of
more than five children older than 21/2 years of age
where individual care is for a period of less than 24
hours per day. Day care centers are a special concern
since they are generally occupied by preschool children
who are less capable of responding to an emergency.
The hazards found in a day care center are far
greater than in normal educational facilities, not so
much because of the occupant or fuel load, but
because of the inability of the occupants to respond.
Children 21/2 years of age or less usually are not
able to recognize an emergency situation, may not
respond appropriately or simply may not be able to
egress without assistance. Thus, facilities that have
more than five children 21/2 years of age or less are
classified as child care facilities and considered to be
Group I-4 occupancies (see Section 308.5) unless the
provisions of Sections 308.5.1 through 308.5.4 allow
for a different classification.
Locations where day care may be provided that
would not be considered Group E are addressed in
Sections 305.2.1 through 305.2.3

 

[steveray]

And, in one of the rooms, shown as existing now has an OL > 50 due to the change to 20-net, but no other work. So does adding the occupants without any other physical work to the room give it a pass since there is no work area? Or is the act of increasing the OL effectively make it a work area?

I would find a way to squash that....Like this:

506.1​

A change of occupancy shall not be made in any building unless that building is made to comply with the requirements of the International Building Code for the use or occupancy. Changes of occupancy in a building or portion thereof shall be such that the existing building is not less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the change

 

[mtlogcabin]

Pre-school ages are typically 3-5 year old's. Don't get focused on what it is called, focus on the use and possible additional code requirements that would be applicable.

The schools that I have dealt with the state limits the classroom size to 35 students. Architects argue that the 20 sq ft per person net OL is more than the state allows and increase fixture count and ventilation requirements along with possible suppression and alarm notification requirement's will drive up the cost.
They don't win that argument.

308.5.1​

A child day care facility that provides care for more than five but not more than 100 children 21/2 years or less of age, where the rooms in which the children are cared for are located on a level of exit discharge serving such rooms and each of these child care rooms has an exit door directly to the exterior, shall be classified as Group E.

305.2​

This group includes buildings and structures or portions thereof occupied by more than five children older than 21/2 years of age who receive educational, supervision or personal care services for fewer than 24 hours per day.

educational sounds like a pre-school description to me

personal care services
[BG]PERSONAL CARE SERVICE. The care of persons who do not require medical care. Personal care involves responsibility for the safety of the persons while inside the building

personal care services Sounds like a day-care description use to me.

 

[Sifu]

As you can see the UBC was 20 sq ft per person OL. Not where the 35 number came from.

1997 UBC

View attachment 15806

Line 22 "nurseries for children (day care)" in the '97 UBC, it is 35, which is what the original plans called out and is consistent with the 2018 IBC. They are now changing it to classrooms at 20. This is really the crux of the problem. They claim it will remain a daycare, yet they change the ratio to 20 for classrooms, and FWIW, the new name of the facility is a school, not a day care. The classification of E includes the sub-group of E-daycare. So if it was a E-daycare, and will now be going to an E-school I see that as a change of use. Couple that with an increased occupant load affecting the MOE and ventilation (the only real applications of code I can identify for this project) and you have a change in application of the codes.

I will have a conversation with the DP, but for now I think they are playing with the terms to avoid making changes that a change of use and increased OL would require.

 

[steveray]

When in doubt, go to the definitions:

[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. 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.
3. 3.A change of use.

 

[mtlogcabin]

nurseries for children (day care)

And that is the only place the word nursery or day care is found in the 1997 UBC.
No definition or age limits mentioned.

where the current International Building Code requires a greater degree of...........

This is what you need to determine. An increase in OL does not automatically change the level of activity.

What is the age of the children? Above 2.5 years? Is this a 1 story building?

 

[steveray]

And that is the only place the word nursery or day care is found in the 1997 UBC.
No definition or age limits mentioned.

This is what you need to determine. An increase in OL does not automatically change the level of activity.

What is the age of the children? Above 2.5 years? Is this a 1 story building?

I would say more people is more activity....I am not saying that is always my answer, but if the applicant can't explain it, I am going to err on the side of caution....

 

[Sifu]

I also could find no definition for "nursery". If day care wasn't provided in parenthesis beside it I'm not sure I would make the connection. Either way though, they are increasing the OL overall, which by itself isn't too impactful, but the 2nd exit from the building crosses an activity room with an OL > 50 (their description and OL) based on the new ratio of 20-net. So now that room needs two exits, and the door would now need to be swinging out, which it is not because the original OL of 35 put the room just under 50 occupants. Basically we have a door that needs to function as exit access from both directions with the increase in OL.

I think they are going to use the facility for a school, which is a function of a religious organization for everything from day care to elementary education, which is why they have loaded it at 20 but until I talk to them I won't know. What I don't want to do is review based on one thing, and have the fire marshal discover it is something more later.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I think they are going to use the facility for a school, which is a function of a religious organization for everything from day care to elementary education, which is why they have loaded it at 20 but until I talk to them I won't know. What I don't want to do is review based on one thing, and have the fire marshal discover it is something more later.

How is your relationship with the fire marshal's office? Our town's fire chief is also the fire marshal, and he delegates all plan review activities to a deputy fire marshal and two fire inspectors/plan reviewers. The deputy fire marshal stops by our office at least two or three times a week, often more. I have his cell phone number, and he doesn't mind if I call him to discuss questions such as this. Fortunately, both departments agree that it's far better for us to coordinate so that we don't have one side approving something that the other side denies.

 

[Sifu]

How is your relationship with the fire marshal's office? Our town's fire chief is also the fire marshal, and he delegates all plan review activities to a deputy fire marshal and two fire inspectors/plan reviewers. The deputy fire marshal stops by our office at least two or three times a week, often more. I have his cell phone number, and he doesn't mind if I call him to discuss questions such as this. Fortunately, both departments agree that it's far better for us to coordinate so that we don't have one side approving something that the other side denies.

Not close, but I don't work directly for the AHJ. I advise the AHJ CBO of my findings and they work it out. The theme is they mostly rely on me for all things not sprinkler and fire alarm related and I rely on them for fire alarm and sprinklers. They will be informed and I try to work with them as much as possible but it isn't what it should or could be.