• 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

Opinions

pwood

pwood

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,067
Location
state of jefferson
i will speak slow so as not to confuse or lose RJJ :mrgreen:. sfd built in the 1930's and converted to business use in the 80's. they now rented it out just before the new year as a residence again. work was done with no permits so they will have to get one.

now the residence went thru a change of occupancy from the business use so would it require sprinklers due to the work that needed permitting as part of the change of occupancy?

rjj,

i have no idea how my post ended up here. could one of you mods move this to the res fire section? thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What code section are you using to require sprinklers

And was the entire house used as a business and residence??
 
2010 CRC -

​



R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems.

An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be

​
installed in one- and two- family




dwellings.



Exception:

​





An automatic residential fire sprinkler system



shall not be required for

​





additions or alterations to existing




buildings that are not already provided with an automatic

residential sprinkler system.

​


As this was originally a SFR, I would say that this exception pertains to the conversion back to its' original use. Couple the fact that the Matrix for Chapter 34, Existing Buildings, shows that only OSHPOD has adopted this chapter, I'd say no sprinklers.

​


I would however require them to obtain the necessary permits. They would need to come in and present a full set of plans of what was done and, if need be, what is proposed.

​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cda,

the entire residence was changed to business use for many years and then the owner decided to rent it out as a residence again. sue has given the section number applicable to the sprinkler requirement. this is a change of occupancy to residential which would make it comply with an "R" occupancy. would this be considered an alteration and no sprinklers required ? would the new occupancy("R") have to meet all the requirements due to the change of use? thanks for the feedback Sue and CDA!
 
Just an opinion, as I am not in CA, but I think you may have technical merit for requiring it, by the letter of the code, (given the change of use), I think Sue has given you something to hang your hat on, unless you really want to fight this fight. Just sayin........pick your battles.
 
pwood,

I am in the same camp as fatboy! While it may be required by "the letter of the code",

you ( may ) can offset the sprinkler requirement with other safety features, such as

heat detectors, CO detectors, portable fire extinguishers, etc. You may can get more

"safety features-for-the-non-sprinkled" buck by trying to work with them.

Unless it is an established, common practice & actually required by your AHJ codes,

do you really want to take on the "sprinkler animal" yet? Just sayin'...

.
 
pwood said:
cda,the entire residence was changed to business use for many years and then the owner decided to rent it out as a residence again. sue has given the section number applicable to the sprinkler requirement. this is a change of occupancy to residential which would make it comply with an "R" occupancy. would this be considered an alteration and no sprinklers required ? would the new occupancy("R") have to meet all the requirements due to the change of use? thanks for the feedback Sue and CDA!
Click to expand...
pwood - Thanks for the thanks, feedback is freely given. :mrgreen:

Also look at the matrix in Chapter 34, existing buildings. Unless you adopted the entire chapter 34, it doesn't apply to this situation. My take is that as there is no provision for the existing conversion to a business and then back to a residence, it doesn't require sprinklers. The original use that it was built for was SFR, not business. So, the current owner is just restoring it to its' former use.

Where I am located, we have a few homes on Main St. that are being used for business. They want to turn them back into a home, fine with me as long as they have the necessary permits to do so. Existing building, no sprinklers required.

Where I have had a problem is with an owner renting a commercial space as a residence. That is a whole nother discussion.......... :eek:
 
what if it was a four unit apartment turned"B" turned back to "R"? when does grampa get lost? the letter of the code requires sprinklers, how about the intent?
 
Sue I agree with you no sprinklers required.

pwood one and two family dwelling are addressed in the CRC your 4 unit apartment example is addressed in CBC.
 
Around here we are still reeling so from the knockdown that happened a cpl of yrs back, even as our little town was still trying to pick itself up off the mat after King Cotton's decline (you heard that right, but that's another story), that such minor "adjustment" of use would not be an issue, long as there is SOME kind of use. Our little biz district is really hollowed out by many factors, including big box, big biz, and sprawl.
 
Which occupancy would you consider to be the highest hazard. A business or a residential?

More people die in residential fires than business fires.

In Chapter 34 what happens when you create a higher hazard than the previous occupancy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top