Older Home converted to commercial child care facility

[cda]

sounds great, that is why I tell my boss he earns the big bucks, $1 more an hour

 

[FredK]

Good solution to the problem vp. Make sure you get something signed to that effect to file and copy. Copies to the mayor and fire department so they're in the loop.

 

[FM William Burns]

Complicated?

after discussion the revealed that there really would be more infants than 5. It gets somewhat complicated, since most of the kids will be there for months/years, and as they pass the "magic" age of 2.5 years, I can't see reclassifying the occupancy.

308.5 Group I-4, day care facilities.

This group shall include buildings and structures occupied by persons of any age who receive custodial care for less than 24 hours by individuals other than parents or guardians, relatives by blood, marriage or adoption, and in a place other than the home of the person cared for.

308.5.2 Child care facility.

A facility that provides supervision and personal care on less than a 24-hour basis for more than five children 21/2 years of age or less shall be classified as Group I-4.

Exception: A child day care facility that provides care for more than five but no more than 100 children 21/2 years or less of age, when the rooms where such children are cared for are located on the level of exit discharge and each of these child care rooms has an exit door directly to the exterior, shall be classified as Group E.

Going back to the “Change in Use” provisions coupled with the fact that the change creates a ”More Hazardous and increased fire risk” I would agree it sure is complicated, however I still can’t wrap my mind around the allowance of a classification of “E”…… IMHO based on:

305.2 Day care.

The use of a building or structure, or portion thereof, for educational, supervision or personal care services for more than five children older than 2½ years of age, shall be classified as a Group E occupancy.

Since the kicker is now 308.5.2 there will be >5 infants as suspected and should be subject to the referenced provisions for fire protection. Maybe it’s because it actually is Friday now. Yep, we have to love the ICC and some say NFPA LSC is contradictory or conflicting.

6.1.4.1* Definition — Day-Care Occupancy.An occupancy in which four or more clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision, by other than their relatives or legal guardians, for less than 24 hours per day.

16.1.1.2 The requirements of Sections xxx through xxx and Section xxx shall apply to day-care occupancies in which more than 12 clients receive care, maintenance, and supervision by other than their relative(s) or legal guardian(s) for less than 24 hours per day.

16.1.1.4 Where a facility houses more than one age group or self-preservation capability, the strictest requirements applicable to any group present shall apply throughout the day-care occupancy or building, as appropriate to a given area, unless the area housing such a group is maintained as a separate fire area.

Charitable operation = low income or under priviledged youths = fire risk.... based on historic experiences with similar situations.

 

[mtlogcabin]

and as they pass the "magic" age of 2.5 years, I can't see reclassifying the occupancy.

Will there be new children under 2.5 years to the replacing the aging ones?

If it doesn't meet code it is not an E you can't just call it that.

 

[vegas paul]

mtlogcabin - that's my point exactly. If it complies when they open, then children grow/age (as far as I know, we all do!), then does the occupancy classification change, or are they obligated to "draft" new kids to replace the aging infant/toddlers?

for instance if they start with 15 six-year-olds (group E by 305.2) and 7 two-year-olds (group E by 308.5.2 exception), what happens one year later if no one leaves and no new kids arrive? 15 seven-year-olds (group E) and 7 three-year-olds (group I-4). Or call the whole thing I-4 because that applies also... My head hurts.

 

[Coug Dad]

VP

You have it backwards. Any number of kids over 2.5 years old is a Group E occupancy. 5 or fewer kids under 2.5 years is also a Group E. More than 5 kids under 2.5 years is a Group I-4 unless every room has a direct exit to the outside. At worst, aging kids would transition from the more hazardous I-4 to the less hazardous E.

 

[mtlogcabin]

In Mt the state regulates the age and number of children so we base the occupancy classification on what the state liscense is for. The designer can't tell use 4 children under 2.5 years of age and call it an E if the liscense allows for 10.

I know you are trying your best to work through this project to reach a safe a reasonable solution and i comend you for that I just do not like to see Building Officials on the 11 o'clock news.

 

[vegas paul]

Coug dad - Where is the code citation for 5 or fewer under 2.5 years being E? 308.5.2 exception clearly says MORE than 5 kids, not fewer... 305.2 requires the kids to be older than 2.5 for an E. So based on my previous post I think I am still correct. But it's late on Friday, so maybe I'm not.

BTW, I'm using 06 IBC.

 

[Coug Dad]

Vp

308.5.2

 

[vegas paul]

Coug Dad - that's what I was citing... It states MORE than 5 children, but no more than 100 children 2.5 years or less of age... shall be classified as E.

So where are you finding that FEWER than 5 children is an E?

 

[Coug Dad]

308.5.2 states that over 5 kids under 2.5 years old is an I-4.

The exception allows more that 5 that would normally be an I-4 to be a group E if each room has a direct exit to the outside.

Less than 5 is either an R-3 or shall be per the IRC per 308.5

or, you treat it as an accessory occupancy to the Group E

Less than 6 kids under 2.5 years is not an I-4

 

[mtlogcabin]

I believe the code is silent for facilities with less than 5 children.

 

[Coug Dad]

under 6 infants is either an R-3 or built to the IRC. The more restrictive E requirements would then apply.

 

[mtlogcabin]

under 6 infants is either an R-3 or built to the IRC.

Missed that one

The more restrictive E requirements would then apply.

Wouldn't an E be less restrictive for sprinklers?

A R-3 would require sprinklers and

An IRC SFR would be no sprinklers and no E requirements

I have a headache

 

[Coug Dad]

mlc

I was using the 2006. You are correct in that the 2009 IRC adds a whole new wrinkle. Have a good weekend.