# Posting of Occupant Load



## righter101 (Apr 12, 2011)

I scanned the previous posts but saw no mention of this.  Forgive me if this has been hashed already.

2009 IBC.  Small "wine tasting room".  Occupant load= 21.  Occupancy class = "B" (A2 <50 occupants (per 303.1 exception 1))

1004.3 Posting of occupant load. Every room or space that is

an assembly occupancy shall have the occupant load of the

room or space posted in a conspicuous place.....

Do they need to post the occupant load??

Why or why not??

thanks to all.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 12, 2011)

It's not an assembly occupancy, its a business. They are just happen to be getting together there. That's the way we have always looked at it, it'll be interesting to see some other opinions.


----------



## High Desert (Apr 12, 2011)

Although you calculate the occupancy using assembly use, if it's under 50 it's not an assembly occupancy. Section 303 identifies "Assembly Group A Occupancies." Exception 1 throws it out of assembly occupancy. I do not require those to be posted.


----------



## righter101 (Apr 12, 2011)

I am in agreement with you both.  I had a differing opinion from my inspector, however, and wanted to see what others thought.


----------



## cda (Apr 12, 2011)

Righter

Do you make up the signs if the business does not??

Sometimes it is good to post even though under 50

For future inspections by others, for the cops , etc..


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 12, 2011)

We don't post anything under 50 and we make our own signs so they are all consistant throughout the City.  I finally made that a requirement because I got tired of seeing napkins, construction paper and placemats being used.


----------



## RLGA (Apr 12, 2011)

It may be an assembly *use*, but it is not an assembly *occupancy*; and an assembly *occupancy *is what is mentioned in the section.


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 12, 2011)

I make them put the signs up, but what good are they?


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 12, 2011)

What good are they?

Reminders and Regulators


----------



## AegisFPE (Apr 12, 2011)

As posted, the sign may be wrong; 21 occupants x 7 sf/occ (1004.2) is a very small room!

The *Maximum* Occupant Load may really be 49 persons (may even be able to use 5 sf/occ around the serving counter), subject to the capacity of the means of egress system (which probably well exceeds 21 persons).

To remind the users that the space is not for 50 or more persons, posting the maximum load, which should not exceed 49 occupants to remain Group B, may be appropriate and in accordance with IBC Section 1004.2.


----------



## MarkRandall (Apr 12, 2011)

A project last year; I noticed an occupancy sign had been posted in a conference room. Occupancy calculated out as 30 something (don't remember exact). Occupancy calculation where shown on my drawings for review by plans examiner. I was kind of surprised to see it posted. Inspector must have asked for it to be posted, I didn't ask.

Anyway, I remember thinking, I don't care if if you have 49 or less people in the room as it would not change exiting or any other code issue. Here's my question for the collective: If a room calculates out to say 38 occupants, is there anything wrong with posting 49 as the maximum occupancy? I seen people wanting to post occupancy lower than calculated to eliminate code requirements, but this was the opposite. Anyone have heart ache for posting higher occupancy provided all code issues are handled?


----------



## righter101 (Apr 12, 2011)

RLGA said:
			
		

> It may be an assembly *use*, but it is not an assembly *occupancy*; and an assembly *occupancy *is what is mentioned in the section.


I think that is an excellent reasoning.  Thank you for that.

To the other posts, we don't provide occupant load signs but it is worth considering, for consistency.


----------



## fatboy (Apr 12, 2011)

Or, 21 occupants X 15 s.f./occ (table/chairs) = 315 s.f. or a 15' X 21' small wine tasitng room.

But, if you have doubts about it, post max OL as Aegis suggests, give you some enforcement leverage.


----------



## righter101 (Apr 12, 2011)

AegisFPE said:
			
		

> As posted, the sign may be wrong; 21 occupants x 7 sf/occ (1004.2) is a very small room!  The *Maximum* Occupant Load may really be 49 persons (may even be able to use 5 sf/occ around the serving counter), subject to the capacity of the means of egress system (which probably well exceeds 21 persons).
> 
> To remind the users that the space is not for 50 or more persons, posting the maximum load, which should not exceed 49 occupants to remain Group B, may be appropriate and in accordance with IBC Section 1004.2.


The plan reviewer reviewed it at 15sqft/occupant.

These spaces are tiny, (there was actually 2 locations).  600-700 square feet, which includes some storage.

Hardly enough room to stack some fine boxed wines.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 12, 2011)

Interesting Thread! I agree with the comments. No need to post! Mark raises an interesting question. If a room calculates to be 38 an is assembly then I would not allow it to have a higher number of 49.


----------



## permitguy (Apr 12, 2011)

I agree it isn't required, but IMO, it's much easier for all involved when they're posted anyway.  It saves me the trouble of counting ceiling tiles and doing math in my head trying to figure out if things have changed since the original CO.  It saves them the trouble of finding out the hard way that they couldn't exceed 50.

We recently had a health club convert raquetball courts into general purpose exercise rooms (with permits).  The occ loads were calculated under 50, so they weren't required to be posted.  During the fire inspection, I found one room with 70 bikes in it.  I was shocked they could get them all in there, but they did.



> Anyone have heart ache for posting higher occupancy provided all code issues are handled?


Not at all.


----------



## pwood (Apr 12, 2011)

post the occ load here. some old businesses have only one exit which limits the occ load. gives the cops a reason to keep crowds under control in one door businesses.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 12, 2011)

Pwood: Do you base OC on exists or floor area?


----------



## FredK (Apr 12, 2011)

If it called out on a plan then yes, but if not no.


----------



## MarkRandall (Apr 12, 2011)

RJJ,

I design based on floor area. In my example, I calculated occupant load to show it was under 50 to show exiting complied. I could have very easily shown my calcs = 38, but to post signage for maximum of 49 occupants. As long as exiting can handle 49 occupants, does it really matter to post the higher number? I didn't know an occupancy was going to be posted so I never had input on what the signage said.

Let's do another example: I have a 150 SF office which calculates out to 1.5 occupants for that office. If two of my co-workers step into my office for a meeting making 3 total occupants, is that against the code? I say no way. Exiting for 3 works just fine. The only difference we have here is were talking a little larger rooms with larger occupancy. No I do not believe the calculated occupancy per floor area is the maximum allowed in any room of a building at any one time.


----------



## pwood (Apr 12, 2011)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Pwood: Do you base OC on exists or floor area?


i start out with table 1004.1.1 to determine # of occupants. i then look at the # of exits, width of exits ,travel distance etc etc...if there is only one exit and 5 k sq. ft. dance hall, the number of occs will be posted based on the one exit provided. bad things happen when you allow too many people in a building with too few or locked exits. the police have asked me on occasion to determine an occupant load to be posted at some of the bars and saloons so they can count heads and thin the rowdy herd when necessary.


----------



## JBI (Apr 12, 2011)

*2009 IBC  1004.2 Increased occupant load.* The _occupant load_ permitted in any building, or portion thereof, is permitted to be increased from that number established for the occupancies in Table 1004.1.1, provided that all other requirements of the code are also met based on such modified number and the _occupant load _does not exceed one occupant per 7 square feet (0.65 m2) of occupiable floor space. Where required by the _building official_, an _approved aisle_, seating or fixed equipment diagram substantiating any increase in _occupant load_ shall be submitted. Where required by the _building official_, such diagram shall be posted.

That said, *1004.3 Posting of occupant load.* Every room or space that is an assembly occupancy shall have the _occupant load_ of the room or space posted in a conspicuous place, near the main _exit_ or _exit access_ _doorway_ from the room or space. Posted signs shall be of an _approved _legible permanent design and shall be maintained by the owner or authorized agent.

_The way I read it... A) The applicant could request a higher occupant load and the Code Oddicial could approve it. and B) Posting of occupant load is required for __*assembly occupancies*__ as pointed out previously. What you indicated was that this is a __*business occupancy*__, therefore requiring it to be posted is outside the scope of authority. Suggesting it on the other hand would be permissible. _


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 12, 2011)

> Anyone have heart ache for posting higher occupancy provided all code issues are handled?


Nope!

or not at all to make the mandated number of digets to post this reply


----------



## RJJ (Apr 13, 2011)

FM: No Problem!

Mark: I don't disagree and I understand your point. And no the second example would not violate the code. I would assume the co- workers are allocated for in some other space within the building/ Floor.

Pwood: Much clearer not I think.


----------



## steveray (Apr 13, 2011)

In those assembly areas...do you also post the design live load?  1603.3 2003 IBC


----------



## MarkRandall (Apr 13, 2011)

RJJ,

I think I've made my point and this will will most likely be my last comment on this topic. It doesn't really matter whether it's co-workers or clients stepping into my office and likewise with the conference room. If you allocate 49 occupants to the conference room (even though area dictated 38 occupants), you've already allocated that occupant load. Most of the time those occupants are going to be from within the building somewhere else plus clients from outside the business, but it doesn't matter, you could loan out that room to say a neighboring business and have 49 occupants from outside the business and still have adequate exiting in case of emergency.

Thanks JBI for posting the relevant code sections.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 13, 2011)

Mark I am not in disagreement!


----------



## Paul Sweet (Apr 13, 2011)

You have to be sure that plumbing fixtures, as well as means of egress, are adequate before posting a higher occupant load, especially where visitors will be present.


----------



## JBI (Apr 13, 2011)

"...permitted to be increased from that number established for the occupancies in Table 1004.1.1, *provided that all other requirements of the code are also met* based on such modified number ..."


----------



## TimNY (Apr 14, 2011)

I would figure the load on what the use of the space is.  If it is an assembly use with tables and chairs, it's 1 per 15.  If it's standing only (eg wine tasting) it's 1 per 5.

A 15x15 room (size of a bedroom) will hold 4 tables with 4 people at each table (-1)-- 15 people.  I would not post an occupant load at 1 per 5 of 45 people.  How can you safely exit 45 people around 4 tables and 16 chairs from a room the size of a bedroom?

If the plans called for the room to have no tables or chairs, not a problem.  But I think the load should be calculated on the conditions that exist.

I would also say that the OL is based on the greater of number-by-table or substantiation by the design professional.

Limiting occupancy based on the exiting is backwards.  If the occupancy exceeds the exits, they need more exits.

Do you limit the occupancy to avoid a fire sprinkler requirement?  Or a panic bar?

I've been down this road... thankfully NY has a "means of egress for existing buildings" chapter.


----------



## pwood (Apr 14, 2011)

tim,

existing building with one exit and no where to add another(physical restraints). there is one thousand square feet and the owner has a band play and 70 people are crammed in there like sardines. a fight breaks out and people are injured and the cops have a helluva time restoring peace. they want to avoid this in the future. if you are the ahj and fire marshall would you consider posting the maximum occupants for the one exit and "B" occupancy? a$$ backwards? sure, but effective!


----------



## TimNY (Apr 14, 2011)

pwood,

Luckily I never had that problem; hopefully will never have that problem.  So it is easy for me to say what I _would_ do.. but who knows.

What I think I would do (keep in mind we have some added wording in NY which would make it easier).. Calculate the OL at 70 people.  Tell the owner he needs an additional exit per "Means of Egress for Existing Buildings", or he can partition a space off as storage, souvenir sales, a lounge room.. whatever.. to get the OL below 50, or apply for a variance from the State (fat chance after RI).  I would not issue an occupancy sign for 70 because the space cannot accommodate them.

At a night check the sections cited would be not enough exits (FC1019.1), unlawful occupancy (FC107.4), failure of door to swing out (FC1008.1.2).. anything that would deal with too many people.

Next would be a referral to the SLA and recommendation that the municipality does not endorse the renewal of their liquor license.

A call to the health department to determine if the sanitary system is adequate for the occupant load.

If it is clearly an unsafe condition you can move to the penal law.

I don't think a sign will change anything.  Enforcement, yes.

Is this a new occupancy (I realize existing building)?  When did the occupancy increase to 70 people?


----------



## pwood (Apr 14, 2011)

tim,

  it was a coffee shop 30 occupants, became a sandwich shop with tables and chairs for 30. one night they hired a band and all hell broke loose. it became an "A" occupancy in one fell swoop! the owner promised not to have more than 49 people and post the occupant load after some gentle persuasion! no problems since!


----------



## TimNY (Apr 14, 2011)

sounds good


----------

