• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Domestic cooking appliances used in commercial buildings.

cda said:
Where does the term "commercial building" come from¿
Click to expand...
It comes from "the other thread" Break Room appliances/counter height vs ADA

Some have implied the use of a type 1 or two hood for "Domestic cooking appliances" used in commercial buildings
 
Well I am in that club

If someone wants to go to sears and buy a gas stove and start cooking hamburgers on it in joe's restaurant, than they need a type I hood.
 
cda said:
If someone wants to go to sears and buy a gas stove and start cooking hamburgers on it in joe's restaurant, than they need a type I hood.
Click to expand...
Correct, But if that same stove is put in an office building so an office worker can warm up a can of soup?
 
We beat the devil out of this before......nobody changed anybody's mind. Case by case here, we tend to go to, if it's not residential, it's commercial first. Hood required.
 
We're with FB on this one.....if the customer is not happy with that, there is an interpretation and modification process through the State Building Inspectors office.....
 
If it is not a one or two family dwelling, this is a case closed situation. A "residential" stove in a commercial building, not within a dwelling unit needs a hood. We have fought this battle a few times.

I don't see a code change coming any time soon on this without opening up a large loophole.
 
Here, the FCO says that you can have a Residential stove in a Commercial setting without a hood,

as long as you remove the "top of the stove" burners / heating elements, otherwise install the

hood or remove the stove altogether.

We beat the devil out of this before
Click to expand...
Let the beating resume! :beatdhrs.
 
gt,

pardon my ignorance. What is FCO? Fire Commissioner's Office?

This is a recurrent problema around here too.
 
2009 IMC - 507.2 Where required. A type I or type II hood shall be installed at or above all commercial cooking appliances...

I don't know that a four burner residential range in the break room of a finacial office (3 occupants, including secretary) really needs a type I hood. By definition, that is NOT a commerical cooking appliance.

And the debate continues... :)
 
An example of how this backfires on us: We approve a residential stove for a financial office break-room without a hood. Limited usage, no chili competitions, etc. Everybody is okay with this, mechanical engineer is not worried about grease build-up in duct work system. Approved. Business grows, and needs more space. They move out. Day-care moves in. Day-care wants to know why we are now requiring a residential stove that didn't have one before. Discussion goes back and forth on usage. Building owner and tenant provide letter of operations describing limits of usage. We settle on a Type II hood with a posted sign indicating limitations of hoods and prohibited uses. A signed letter is provided by tenant and owner on agreement and BO's right to revoke agreement.

Not a perfect solution by any means IMO.
 
Papio,

That letter, that you require, will provide documentation that that particular tenant

WAS advised (in writing) to not use that stove in a non-approved manner.

That way, after the fires are put out and it goes to court, you can simply pull out

that letter and submit it as evidence of "We told `em not to use that stove that

way judge!" It's definitely a CYA Factor! It helps to substantiate your case, maybe

not win, but it DOES help to build a positive case for the jurisdiction' side.

.
 
globe trekker said:
Papio,That letter, that you require, will provide documentation that that particular tenant

WAS advised (in writing) to not use that stove in a non-approved manner.

That way, after the fires are put out and it goes to court, you can simply pull out

that letter and submit it as evidence of "We told `em not to use that stove that

way judge!" It's definitely a CYA Factor! It helps to substantiate your case, maybe

not win, but it DOES help to build a positive case for the jurisdiction' side.

.
Click to expand...
Or when they are cooking hamburgers on top and you walk in,

Tell them to stop and no cooking till they get a type I hood
 
I have seen a hubcap and a can of Sterno serve as a commercial kitchen. Hood required?
 
I might be inclined to let them have a range without a Type I hood. The range may be in a commercial building, but is it being used "for commercial purposes"? Is the requirement for the hood really intended for this application? Do people do serious cooking - and sell meals - in the break room at work? I think the code language is more correctly meant for "commercial food service" places instead of any non-domestic use.

Anybody check the commentary?
 
Is a day care with a domestic stove that is used once a day to cook lunch a "commercial food service establishment"

The IMC commentary (507.2.3 Domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes) which is not code says: "Again, it is important for the CO to examine the frequency, duration and nature of the cooking operation(s) before determining whether an exhaust hood is required for a particular kitchen facility."

At some point as an AHJ you make choices based off common sense, or occasionally a choice is made because of pressure from the HBA or any other entity that has the ear of a political authority. In our jurisdiction we have taken the view point in situations like these that it is overkill to require a type I hood over a domestic appliance used for limited food preparation mostly because we do not consider these occupancies to be a commercial food service establishment. It may turn out to be a poor policy, and as in any situation where safety is involved we hope the choice is not going to cost a life.
 
Agree with gbhammer!

Here, the common sense approach, by our Fire Code Official, is to remove the "top

of the stove" burners / heating elements, or the stove entirely, or they can install

the Type I hood, or the business / property owners can sign a letter stating that

the fire dept. will not respond to any fires on that property. Options ARE provided!

As I understand it, there is statistical data to support claims fires DO occur (on a

Residential stove in a commercial setting / office / other). Also, because the FCO here

"has skin in the game", he DOES have a strong case to require compliance.

FWIW, this topic comes up regularly around these parts. The various business

owners sing the same tune here. :pitty

.
 
gbhammer said:
Is a day care with a domestic stove that is used once a day to cook lunch a "commercial food service establishment"
Click to expand...
In this specific case, it was for service of over 100+ children. They stated that, while most meals would be catered in, there would still be significant daily use for soups, special meal requirements, and warming beverages and formulas. Based on this information, we felt, and the mechanical engineer agreed, a Type II hood was an appropriate compromise. I am not sure if Milton would be pleased, but we felt some common sense was exercised, and prevailed (I am sure there are those will disagree).

In another similar circumstance, there was a commercial dishwasher being used, in addition to a stove that was used to prepare all 100+ meals each day (no catering) in their dedicated cafeteria area. These are vastly different animals than the 30-50 kid day-cares we were used to seeing in the past, and in our opinion are testing the invisible line between what is and is not commercial use. They tend to be full sized kitchens with 3-comp sinks, multiple coolers/fridges, stoves, dishwashers, and micro-waves (some of these are even commercial grade). They are challenging projects, and this day-care even had a shower room and a time-out room/closet, which I had to require to meet the minimum room dimensions.
 
Why is common sense not so Common

A change of occupancy should require an inspection. If there is a change from an office to a daycare center with 100 plus kids you will need more restroom facilities as well. that is the time you require the "hood"
 
ICE said:
I have seen a hubcap and a can of Sterno serve as a commercial kitchen. Hood required?
Click to expand...
yes, you should require they use a car hood instead of a hub-cap, unless you have adopted special energy conservation by-laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top