Change of use?

[jar546]

I have an existing bar/tavern (unknown if it is certified or not with a previous L&I c/o) as part of a large, older building. The tavern is on the right and there was a hoagie shop on the left. Both the bar and hoagie shop were operated by the owner of the building and access to both sides was available through a common opening so you can travel between the two as if they were one.

The building was sold and the new owner was told by the PLCB that since they are smoking, they will have to close off the sub shop from the tavern. The new owner closed off the common opening into the sub shop(without a permit which I am addressing) and now the only access to the sub shop is from the existing front door which was always used as a primary entrance to the sub shop when it was in existence. The new owner has not operated the sub shop which has been close for about a year.

Now the property owner/tavern operator wants to rent out the hoagie shop to a separate tenant.

We now have a change of use since it was one owner with open access to both businesses, to one owner with a tenant and two separate businesses.

The sub shop owner states they need a c/o for them to get their food license. I am unsure how to proceed with this situation from an accessibility standpoint. The building is not accessible and there is only a small, non-compliant bathroom for use by the future sub shop tenant. He states his intention will be takeout only.

The future sub shop owner states he will not be doing any work and simply painting and moving in. How can I issue him a c/o if there is no building permit for his move into the shop?

 

[JBI]

Re: Change of use?

EBC or Chap 34?

 

[jar546]

Re: Change of use?

EBC or Chap 34?

good question. Only phone calls so far. Maybe since there will only be painting, I can choose to utilize the IEBC.

Does this meet the definition of change of occupancy? It has been empty on the sub-shop side and they want to run a business so it is an increase of activity in the building................

Food for thought.

 

[kilitact]

Re: Change of use?

I don't see a change of use, same occupancy classification, same use. The number of owners etc has no bearing on code complaince. Sell them a permit to wall off the opening and give them a copy of the existing C O.

 

[jar546]

Re: Change of use?

I don't see a change of use, same occupancy classification, same use. The number of owners etc has no bearing on code complaince. Sell them a permit to wall off the opening and give them a copy of the existing C O.

What existing CO?

I doubt there is one. They will have to check with the PA Dept of L&I because they are the ones who issued commercial COs prior to 2004. Most of the time, a CO cannot be found with L&I and hence my situation.

 

[kilitact]

Re: Change of use?

In that case I would issue a Co after the permitted work (closure of opening) is approved. Note on the Co that it was an existing business, grandfathered in.

 

[mueller]

Re: Change of use?

I also do not see a change of use.

Jeff

I am using chapter 403 of title 34 in place of chapter 1 of IBC & IRC, Is this correct in PA.?

 

[jar546]

Re: Change of use?

I also do not see a change of use.Jeff

I am using chapter 403 of title 34 in place of chapter 1 of IBC & IRC, Is this correct in PA.?

Yes

I do not see it as a change of use but see that I may be able to make a case for change of use because it has been empty and was part of one single business, not separated into two. In addition, you can split hairs based on the definition of "change of occupancy" because it will increase the activity of the building.

Not sure I want to go there. This is what sucks about older existing buildings that probably do not have a previous CO.

 

[jar546]

Re: Change of use?

Don't forget 403.28

§ 403.28. Uncertified buildings.

(a) Under section 902(b)(6) of the act (35 P. S. § 7210.902(b)(6)), an uncertified building that was built before April 27, 1927, is deemed to be legally occupied until the owner proposes to renovate, add an addition, alter or change the occupancy of the building. The renovation, addition, alteration or change in occupancy must comply with the Uniform Construction Code.

(b) Under section 902(b) of the act, uncertified buildings within the Department’s jurisdiction must meet the following requirements which do not apply to uncertified buildings under subsection (a):

(1) Maximum story height, minimum allowable construction type based on floor area, vertical opening and shaft protection requirements, means of egress requirements pertaining to minimum number of exits, maximum travel distances to exits, means of egress illumination, minimum egress widths and heights for exit doors, exit stairs, exit ramps and exit corridors requirements under the ‘International Building Code."

(2) Fire safety requirements in the "International Building Code" for fire alarms, fire extinguishers, heat and smoke detectors, automatic sprinkler systems and occupancy and incidental use separations. The following also apply:

(i) If construction began on a building before May 19, 1984, the installation of automatic sprinkler systems is not required.

(ii) If construction began on a building after May 19, 1984, automatic sprinklers are only required if the building is classified in use groups E (educational), H (high-hazard), I (institutional), or R-1 or R-2 (residential) or if the building has occupied floors more than 75 feet above lowest level of fire department access. Buildings in use groups R-1 and R-2 which do not have occupied floors more than 75 feet above lowest level of fire department access may, instead of installing automatic sprinkler systems, install hard-wired interconnected heat and smoke detectors in all rooms or spaces, whether they are occupied or unoccupied.

(iii) If construction of a building began after May 18, 1984, automatic sprinkler installation shall be completed by December 22, 2010, or any certificate of occupancy issued shall be invalid.

(3) Accessibility requirements are applicable as follows:

(i) If construction of an uncertified building began before September 1, 1965, accessibility requirements will not be imposed by the Department.

(ii) If construction of a building began after August 31, 1965, and before February 18, 1989, and if the building is a State-owned building, a restaurant or a retail commercial establishment, the building must have at least one accessible main entrance, an accessible route from the accessible entrance to any public spaces on the same level as the accessible entrance and, if toilet rooms are provided, the building must have at least one toilet room for each sex or a unisex toilet room complying with the accessibility requirements of the "International Building Code."

(iii) If construction of the building began after February 17, 1989, all accessibility requirements of the "International Building Code" shall be met.

(4) Structural requirements will not be imposed unless the Department determines that the building or a portion of the building has defects that are defined as dangerous in section 202 of the "International Existing Building Code." If the building is dangerous, the Department may impose only those requirements minimally necessary to remove danger to the building’s occupants.

(5) A construction code official may deny the issuance of a certificate of occupancy if the official deems that a building is unsafe because of inadequate means of egress, inadequate lighting and ventilation, fire hazards or other dangers to human life or to public welfare.

© The following apply to uncertified buildings where the Department does not have jurisdiction and which are not governed under subsection (a):

(1) A construction code official shall issue a certificate of occupancy to an uncertified building if it meets the requirements of the latest version of the "International Existing Building Code" or Chapter 34 of the "International Building Code." The construction code official shall utilize the code for the municipality which best applies, in the official’s professional judgment.

(2) A construction code official may deny the issuance of a certificate of occupancy if the official deems that a building is unsafe because of inadequate means of egress, inadequate lighting and ventilation, fire hazards or other dangers to human life or to public welfare.

(3) A municipality governed under this subsection may utilize the standards of subsection (b) for the issuance of certificates of occupancy to uncertified buildings if the municipality adopts an ordinance.

 

[RJJ]

Re: Change of use?

In PA the issue becomes a question of if it was a legal occupancy approved under the fire and panic act. If they don't have a CO from the AHJ or the state it becomes a whole new game.

As I said yesterday I believe a minimum approach as a level one is the best one can do. Also look at 3410.2.1 and (2) this may be of help. Couldn't remember the section on the phone. Old brain!

Jeff this is a great question for discussion!

 

[kilitact]

Re: Change of use?

I find older/ existing buildings/occupancies to be more challenging, read interesting, than new buildings. But it does involve thinking outside the “box”, and the ability to allow/open your mind up to other ways of achieving code compliance.

 

[RJJ]

Re: Change of use?

Kil: I can agree with that idea! Sometimes it hard to find the right lines to use to create the box. Good discussion can help on those issues. One problem in PA is we have two sets of rules. The UCC and then the IBC.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Re: Change of use?

The PA UCC overrides the IBC. If it is uncertified it is a change in Occupancy no matter what is was used for before. I get these all the time. They must have egress, emerg. lighting, exit signs, an accessable route, accessable restrooms, accessable parking, etc. I don't look at the structural.

 

[jar546]

Re: Change of use?

UPDATE:

Bar/Building owner came in to pull a permit for when he closed off the sub shop without a permit. During a site visit it was discovered that he put a brand new bathroom in the sub-shop without a permit. The bathroom is not even close to being compliant with ANSI 117.1, IPC, IBC or IMC so he will be tearing it out.

The can of worms has been opened.

Jeff

 

[JBI]

Re: Change of use?

Well then, it's time to go fishing!

I still can't wrap my head around adopting both the EBC and Chapter 34. It's bad enough when we have to deal with a six month 'transition' period after a major code change (going from our old single book to the new modified I-Codes provided a six month 'window' where applicants could choose which they wanted to use?), but to have two sets of rules permanently? Insane.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: Change of use?

We have the EBC or Chapter 34. The designer chooses which one they want to use. Can't mix and match it is one or the other. Personally I like Chapter 34.