BSSTG
Gold Member
Greetings all,
I am catching some grief for requiring exit signs to be installed in some of the older stores in the historic district when there is a change of occupancy. I'm not referring to a change in occupancy classification neccessarily but it can be that, or, just a change from Group M to a new business which may be another Group M.
Of course the guy arguing is an ex state senator, attorney and has way too much time on his hands. Imagine that.
I typically confide in a bud who is a MCP and agrees with me that egress components are not something that are grandfathered. I'm not asking anybody to rip the building down and start over. That said, this attorney may have a bit of an argument after I read 102.5 of the '06 IFC which deals with historic buildings and which we have adopted. The issue I see would be if the fire code was negated in the historic district to any degree it would have to be across the board which in my mind could be a danged disaster. And if you don't adhere to it, how do you regulate what goes on?
102.5 last sentence says "Fire protection in designated historic buildings and structures shall be provided in accordance with an approved fire protection plan" So what the heck does that mean?
Of course of all the occupancy inspections I've done in the historic district nobody has ever balked at putting up exit lights until I ran into this guy. That includes another attorney I might add.
Our city attorney told me awhile back when I talked to him about this case said "expletive him. He's never beat me in court anyway"
Every day is a new day!
thanks
Byron
I am catching some grief for requiring exit signs to be installed in some of the older stores in the historic district when there is a change of occupancy. I'm not referring to a change in occupancy classification neccessarily but it can be that, or, just a change from Group M to a new business which may be another Group M.
Of course the guy arguing is an ex state senator, attorney and has way too much time on his hands. Imagine that.
I typically confide in a bud who is a MCP and agrees with me that egress components are not something that are grandfathered. I'm not asking anybody to rip the building down and start over. That said, this attorney may have a bit of an argument after I read 102.5 of the '06 IFC which deals with historic buildings and which we have adopted. The issue I see would be if the fire code was negated in the historic district to any degree it would have to be across the board which in my mind could be a danged disaster. And if you don't adhere to it, how do you regulate what goes on?
102.5 last sentence says "Fire protection in designated historic buildings and structures shall be provided in accordance with an approved fire protection plan" So what the heck does that mean?
Of course of all the occupancy inspections I've done in the historic district nobody has ever balked at putting up exit lights until I ran into this guy. That includes another attorney I might add.
Our city attorney told me awhile back when I talked to him about this case said "expletive him. He's never beat me in court anyway"
Every day is a new day!
thanks
Byron