• 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.

Vacant Building - Certificate of Occupancy

B

Bob Phoenix

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
17
Location
Florida
I might be mistaken, but I think the economy is getting a little better, a little at a time...

Here's what I have...

Florida has adopted their new (2010) building code which is basically "Florida amendments" to the ICC (2009)... They did the same thing in 2007 to the 2006 ICC code set...

With times getting better I have people comming out of the shadows to try their hand at starting new businesses (but, mostly, in old building that have been vacant for long periods of time...)

I seem to remember, somewhere on the '06 code that said something about... once a building has sat vacant for six months or longer the building was to receive a new C.O. in order to be occupied (re-occupied...)

Does anyone remember (or know) were that reference or citation might be...?

(I also remember that it applied to vacant residential structures too.)

ANy help would be greatly appreciated...
 
Bob Phoenix said:
I might be mistaken, but I think the economy is getting a little better, a little at a time... once a building has sat vacant for six months or longer the building was to receive a new C.O. in order to be occupied (re-occupied...) Does anyone remember (or know) were that reference or citation might be...? (I also remember that it applied to vacant residential structures too.) ANy help would be greatly appreciated...
Click to expand...
Is the reason you want to add a bureaucratic hurdle because you don't want the economy to get better?
 
Did you revoke the existing CO? If yes on what grounds?

Agree with brudgers. Why add another bureaucratic hurdle to the process. If you have a business liscense program inspect the building at that time along with the FD for life safety items. Remember the building only has to meet code for the year it was built, not new codes that came in later. Think about it, how would you issue a CO for a 150 OL dinner that was built 10 years ago and closed down 12 months ago and is going to reopen under new managment. Are you going to require sprinklers if not then how do you issue a new CO under todays code?

111.4 Revocation.

The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.
 
Never heard of a requirement like that.......thank God......that would be super ugly! They will get a Cof O for the new work they do (if they get permits)...but the entire building does not get a new C of O.....at least here in CT, but we tweaked our Ch. 1 pretty well....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We would only re-issue a CO if there was a Change to Occupancy/Use (e.g. occupant load or classification). As mt stated, revocation is usually a last resort, that we are careful to only use when all else fails. We are pretty good at writing soft and fuzzy letters where we mean it...this time.
 
Nope, not trying to add another layer of bureaucratic specification (BS) to a property that has layed vacant through two code cycles...

I'm just trying to respond to some Corrispondance Related to Administrative Proceedure (CRAP) that I have received from my state's ADA regulatory agency...

Here's what I have...

A second floor office space with no accessibility features (total space is 3500 Sq. Ft.) was once occupied as a (as in one) real estate office for a broker and four agents. (Background: built 1985-pre ADA, single means of egress from the second floor, via 32 inch wide stairs and no handrails to grade, three non impact rated glass doors and over 300 square feet of non impact windows with a direct ocean front view)

The interior space was illegally divided into three seperate 1100 SF tenant spaces with no fire (or smoke) seperation walls, three A/C systems and has been vacant since 2008.

A new tenant (a software support company) with ten employees has taken occupany of one third of the non-accessible second floor, a three man consulting firm has taken over the center portion of the second floor and another multi employee company wants to occupy the third portion with a least a dozen employees (a call center, I think.)

In order for me to give the new companies their occupational license (ordinance requiremnt not a code requirement) I need to ensure accessibility to the second floor (more than five people) HOWEVER, I want the occupants to apply for a "waiver of accessibility" (as allowed by the state) BUT!!! In order to get a waiver, there must be new construction (I'm requiring continuation of the partition wall to create fire barriers between tenant spaces.) and the required features of acccessibility must creat a financial burden in ordr to be waived.

So, I thought (and it may have been a local amendment that I was thinking about) there was language in the Code that addressed building that have been vacant and requiring re-certification...

Bob
 
Oh, I see.

You're just trying to conspire to avoid complying with Federal Civil Rights law.

That makes it all better.
 
Bob Phoenix said:
Nope, not trying to add another layer of bureaucratic specification (BS) to a property that has laid vacant through two code cycles...I'm just trying to respond to some Correspondence Related to Administrative Procedure (CRAP) that I have received from my state's ADA regulatory agency...
Click to expand...
A+ on acronyms.
 
gbhammer said:
Correspondence Related to Administrative Procedure - Was only one of the levels of wrongness
Click to expand...
in context, yes, it was the first of many levels. I was trying to be supportive, and positive...for a change, and ran with it.
 
I don't have a copy of the Fl Building Codes but under the IBC accessiblity to the second floor would not be required

There is no change of occupancy from what you indicate. The previous use was a "B" and all the new uses are a "B". Unless the SBCCI required an elevator at the time of construction and none was installed it is a code compliant building under todays code

I would like to help you conspire in your attempt to "violate" the Federal Civil Rights law by reminding you that if you require the 2nd floor to be made accessible then you may be exceeding the 20% maximum amount of the remodel cost that you can require during a remodel or change of occupancy.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I don't have a copy of the Fl Building Codes but under the IBC accessiblity to the second floor would not be required
Click to expand...
Last time I looked, which hasn't been since the new ADA, Florida pretty much requires vertical accessibility in all places of public accommodation. It's generally referred to as "The elevator rule" when projects run aground upon it.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I don't have a copy of the Fl Building Codes but under the IBC accessiblity to the second floor would not be requiredThere is no change of occupancy from what you indicate. The previous use was a "B" and all the new uses are a "B". Unless the SBCCI required an elevator at the time of construction and none was installed it is a code compliant building under todays code

I would like to help you conspire in your attempt to "violate" the Federal Civil Rights law by reminding you that if you require the 2nd floor to be made accessible then you may be exceeding the 20% maximum amount of the remodel cost that you can require during a remodel or change of occupancy.
Click to expand...
The Florida Code is here... Chapter 11 of the old code deals with accessibility and allows a finacial hardship to excuse the owner or occupant from meeting the requirements of the Florida ADA... and not to be too much of a stickler about the occupancy issue, but... while the building was "vacant" it was used for storage, an illegal residence, a dance studio and, well... according to the police reports... a crack house... Plus I still need to deal with the issue of tenant seperation. as I see the bulk of the problem, the employer(s) will never be able to provide accomodation for employment should they have an applicant who may need such... But, that aside Iknow the corrective costs would far outstrp the minimum threshold criteria

I feel that if the employer wants to take on an accessablity attorney, that his business...

I just need to ensure that I've met my requirement to "faithfully perform the duties and responcibilities" as the laws of the state mandate...

Oh, and with regard to the vacancy/ new certificate rule it was a local administrative amendment that was enacted by a few municipalities who were having major problems with forclosures and squatters...

Thanks for the help...
 
Chapter 34 of the Fla Bldg Code references says you are to comply with the Florida Building Code,Existing Buildings. What does that say? The lRest of chapter 34 is reserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top