expansion of A-2

[BSSTG]

Greetings,

Something I've wondered about a long time is about to happen in my jurisdiction. Existing unsprinklered restaurant is going to expand by adding a new section which will be a new kitchen. I don't know what is happening the old kitchen at this time. Existing occ load is over 100 already. Obviously the occupant load will increase at least minimally.

Should this place be sprinklered at this time. BTW, these same folks pulled a fast one on my predecessor. They built another brand new A-2 and somehow got away without sprinklers.

thanksabunch

BSSTG

 

[cda]

Yes, when they cross over the sq ft or occupant load you shall sprinkle

Now if they want to and you allow it, put a fire wall some place and chop up the building.

May not look good or hard to operate in!!

 

[mtlogcabin]

2012 IEBC

1102.3 Fire protection systems.

Existing fire areas increased by the addition shall comply with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code.

[F] 903.2.1.2 Group A-2.

An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group A-2 occupancies where one of the following conditions exists:

1. The fire area exceeds 5,000 square feet (464.5 m2);

2. The fire area has an occupant load of 100 or more; or

3. The fire area is located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge serving such occupancies.

Create a separate fire area or make sure it does note exceed 5,000 sq ft and the existing occupant load is not increased. Since it is already over 100 and they are adding a kitchen they could reduce some of the dining area and make the OL a wash or less then what the current is.

 

[north star]

$ - $ = $ - $

BSSTG,

Tell them they must sprinkle the entire restaurant area.,

or install compliant fire areas........If they balk, ...tell

them they can challenge you in court, ...thereby placing

their project on hold until the case is settled..........It's

only [ their ] money !



$ - $ = $ - $

 

[mtlogcabin]

.If they balk, ...tellthem they can challenge you in court, ...thereby placing

their project on hold until the case is settled.

That is a pretty adversarial approach

BSSTG

They did not pull a "fast one" over your predecessor. Your predecessor was ignorant of the requirements or did not do his job.

You are the new sheriff in town and you can take an Andy of Mayberry or an Elliot Ness approach depending on the political climate you work under and your personality.

I prefer the "Andy" approach when dealing with people. Just watch out for the Barney's in your organization who may undermine you.

 

[cda]

I like the "Columbo"

 

[steveray]

I'm with MT...if they a "worsening" a noncompliant situation, it would then need to comply, whatever that might be...My gut says sprinklers.

 

[TheCommish]

The review required by chapter 34 of the IBC or the IEBC if done correctly should uncover the original omission.

I just had one where the analysis for the proposed work uncovered that the building had been built without sprinklers and it was allowed, so the new work did not require remedial work to correct waht I though were past omissions.

 

[mark handler]

Sprinkle it.

 

[BSSTG]

That is a pretty adversarial approach BSSTG

They did not pull a "fast one" over your predecessor. Your predecessor was ignorant of the requirements or did not do his job.

You are the new sheriff in town and you can take an Andy of Mayberry or an Elliot Ness approach depending on the political climate you work under and your personality.

I prefer the "Andy" approach when dealing with people. Just watch out for the Barney's in your organization who may undermine you.

Come on. I was trying to be nice. He's retired now. However, I've got some really good backing here. I'm still in the honeymoon stage so they say!

BS

 

[jdfruit]

Many an in-law (upper administrators) has ruined a honeymoon resulting in divorce (at-will probation period discharge). Keep your eyes and ears open for trouble signs.