• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Domestic cooking appliances used in commercial buildings.

gt,

Would burner removal spoil listing of cooking equipment?

BTW at a "group shelter" at a nearby state park I have seen what looks like a locally made hood with fire suppression equipment made from a portable fire extinguisher that had a pull-chain rigged to it.

Over a standard domestic range.

Looked pretty good, actually...was built prior to inspection adoption in these parts.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
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.
Click to expand...
Pretty much how we do it to the tee.
 
Common sense comes and goes as the politicians and Director/CO's change in their elected or appointed positions.

That is why its so nice to have an archive being built with this forum.
 
Would burner removal spoil listing of cooking equipment?
Click to expand...
No! They can still use the baking oven to cook something, ..just nothing on the stove top! Too muchstatistical data ( around here anyway) that supports fires being started on the stove tops! We love

our greasy fried foods and food products around here, and stove top type fires have been

(statistically) common. It is getting better though! The fire dept. does make regular visits to all

of the businesses checking for the compliant type of portable fire extinguishers and smoke alarms.

.
 
gbhammer said:
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
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the interesting choice of the word "overkill" in a life-safety situation for the moment... If the food preparation is so limited that a hood is overkill, then certainly a stove and oven is overkill for the level of food preparation.

In other words, if it's just for heating soup, a microwave is more than suitable and there is no need for a range and stove.

I'd even go so far as letting two or three microwaves slide without a hood in deference to common sense.

But the only reason someone needs a range and stove is to allow them to do the sort of activities which necessitate a hood.
 
brudgers said:
Uh...that's why the code requires a hood.
Click to expand...
No

That is your interpretation.

Code requires a hood in commercial cooking facilities not in all commercial occupancies
 
505 covers domestic appliances in dwellings.

507.2.3 covers domestic appliances used for commercial purposes.

There's nothing unusual about this.

NFPA 101 has exactly the same approach - if you want to cook in a structure other than a dwelling, then you have to wear big girl undies.

Hey, at least now you know how to do it right.
 
mark handler said:
No That is your interpretation.

Code requires a hood in commercial cooking facilities not in all commercial occupancies
Click to expand...
:agree Brudgers you are applying your own interpretation which really means about next to nothing since the final decision is for the CO. That’s not to say that if you as the DP on a project call out for a type I hood, that I wouldn't be happy for it.
 
jim baird said:
gt,Would burner removal spoil listing of cooking equipment?

BTW at a "group shelter" at a nearby state park I have seen what looks like a locally made hood with fire suppression equipment made from a portable fire extinguisher that had a pull-chain rigged to it.

Over a standard domestic range.

Looked pretty good, actually...was built prior to inspection adoption in these parts.
Click to expand...
Do you have any pictures of that? I saw something similar in a commercial resturant, with a non-compliant hood. I declined to service the "suppression system". But,w e both agreed I was not welcome in the establishment.
 
brudgers said:
505 covers domestic appliances in dwellings. 507.2.3 covers domestic appliances used for commercial purposes.

There's nothing unusual about this.

NFPA 101 has exactly the same approach - if you want to cook in a structure other than a dwelling, then you have to wear big girl undies.

Hey, at least now you know how to do it right.
Click to expand...
Maybe if we put a closet in the breakroom and a full bathroom we can call it the "Night Watchman's Room", and then it will be an R use (no hood yeah) wait no its a B because it has no egress window and the couch that the guy sleeps on is not a bed, so it has to be a B, but ahg the shower isn't ADA compliant, and they are using the private office exception so no one can use the break room. Ah ha no one uses the room then why a hood at all. We should take out the closet so we can get away with out having egress windows, and take out the couch so we can keep from sprinkling the building.
 
Commercial purposes is not a office worker warming up lunch

I am glad that in 35 years in the business, I have never met a BO that was not wise enough to understand the difference.

With that rational if someone wants a couch in their office it is a dwelling because they may fall asleep on it and it becomes a sleeping room….

This make me glad I'm on the west coast.....
 
What about a high school home ec class room where the stoves are used all day long for 6 periods teaching kids how to cook, do you require a hood of either type or none at all.
 
gbhammer said:
What about a high school home ec class room where the stoves are used all day long for 6 periods teaching kids how to cook, do you require a hood of either type or none at all.
Click to expand...
High risk and high likelihood there will be a fire in a classroom environment, not the same as warming up lunch

Occupancy Risk of an E vs B or M
 
globe trekker said:
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!

.
Click to expand...
That's not really a viable option given to business owners, is it? Surely you jest - I just can't read the tounge in cheek on that one...
 
With that rational if someone wants a couch in their office it is a dwelling because theymay fall asleep on it and it becomes a sleeping room….
Click to expand...
No disrespect Mark H., however, if and when it goes to litigation the prosecuting attorney willmost likely take this approach, ..that indeed that space was used for sleeping, therefore, it

must be a dwelling. Your Code Offical should have known this, now pay up! Unless the

defending legal team can present a strong, well document case law history, the AHJ could

have significant exposure.

I, personally, do not agree with this, but the legal (non-justice) system is what it is.

.
 
Darren,

I DID include property owners in my statement, not just business owners, but Yes,

it is a (as I understand it) statement that has been issued to another neighboring

jurisdiction. The other neighboring jurisdiction wants coverage of their buildings

and facilities, without paying for it, ...they want & expect our jurisdiction to

respond to their emergencies, using our resources; including risking our fire troops

lives, at our expense.

FWIW, this setup is like a town / city / village within a county / parish / borough

and the county / parish / borough isn't wanting to pay for the services they have

received in the past. No homeowners are at risk, but a contract for the fire &

emergency response services is pending. Pending until someone is willing to

compensate this jurisdiction for the risks being efforted.

Would your AHJ be willing to send their resources (not just human) to a call,

without being compensated?

.
 
Glad to see thereare rational BO's in VA

Commercial Kitchen Hoods

Commentary

The intent of this provision is to limit the danger of fire caused by the use of cooking equipment in establishments that are used as commercial food preparation establishments such as restaurants, banquet facilities, cafeterias or other commercial cooking facilities where cooking is the primary or central use of the building or facility. The likelihood of dangerous conditions developing within a kitchen where its use is minor in nature is small relative to the cost of a hood. This meets the intent of Section 102 of the Virginia Construction Code.

http://www.norfolk.gov/Planning/PDFFiles/Commercial_Kitchen_Hoods.pdf
 
They must have never heard of brudgers in VA, or they heard to much of him, hard to tell they didn't put a beware of dog sign up.
 
gbhammer said:
:agree Brudgers you are applying your own interpretation which really means about next to nothing since the final decision is for the CO. That’s not to say that if you as the DP on a project call out for a type I hood, that I wouldn't be happy for it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call out a hood. Because there wouldn't be a stove.

And the final decision is not for the BO.

As this thread points out, just because you got a permit, it doesn't mean your building meets code.
 
mark handler said:
Commercial purposes is not a office worker warming up lunch I am glad that in 35 years in the business, I have never met a BO that was not wise enough to understand the difference. With that rational if someone wants a couch in their office it is a dwelling because they may fall asleep on it and it becomes a sleeping room…. This make me glad I'm on the west coast.....
Click to expand...
And that's why an architect in California requires an engineer to sign off on any new building.
 
brudgers said:
And that's why an architect in California requires an engineer to sign off on any new building.
Click to expand...
Not true, you don't know much about architecture in California
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top