# Funeral Home



## Rick18071 (May 17, 2013)

Funeral home wants to add an one story garage type addition. Don't know square feet yet but the existing (at least 50 years old) building is 3 stories no sprinklers. Also no current C. O. May have apartments upstairs. Asked for more info. Code says A-3 can only be 2 stories without sprinklers. Can they do the addition if the existing building passes Sec. 3412 compliance alternatives? They are going to have a crematory in the garage addition with a small viewing area behind glass. 2009 IBC.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 20, 2013)

No replay. Ok ill make it easer:

Say it does have a C.O. for a mixed use R-2/A-3. no sprinklers, 3 story, under 6,000 sq. ft. including new 1000 sq ft addition. Built before we had codes.  Existing is contruction type VB and new addition will be 3B. There is no seperation between the A-3 and R-2. Can they add the sq. ft. if the building is kept under the 6,000 sq. ft max. without sprinklers even if it is over the story limit already?

They want to put in a 1 hour wall between the existing building and the addition. I think they would need at least a 2 hour wall because of the R-2.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 20, 2013)

If there is no separation then the Type of construction is V-B no matter what the type of construction addition is. If it was legal at the time you adopted your code it is legal today. As long as the A-3 use is on the main level ( exit discharge level) then I would not have a problem. However the addition should have a fire separation between the new and the existing  to avoid the sprinkler requirements.                                                                                                                                                                                                        IEBC SECTION 1002

HEIGHTS AND AREAS

1002.1 Height limitations.

No addition shall increase the height of an existing building beyond that permitted under the applicable provisions of Chapter 5 of the International Building Code for new buildings.

1002.2 Area limitations.

No addition shall increase the area of an existing building beyond that permitted under the applicable provisions of Chapter 5 of the International Building Code for new buildings unless fire separation as required by the International Building Code is provided.

Exception: In-filling of floor openings and nonoccupiable appendages such as elevator and exit stair shafts shall be permitted beyond that permitted by the International Building Code .

1002.3 Fire protection systems.

Existing fire areas increased by the addition shall comply with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code .


----------



## kilitact (May 20, 2013)

Put a 2 hour firewall between existing and new, problem solved.


----------



## Builder Bob (May 20, 2013)

compliance alternatives as listed in section 3412 take precedence over chapter 2 through  33.  However the entire evaluation has to be performed with passing scores for MOE, general safety, and fire safety......


----------



## kilitact (May 20, 2013)

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> compliance alternatives as listed in section 3412 take precedence over chapter 2 through  33.  However the entire evaluation has to be performed with passing scores for MOE, general safety, and fire safety......


BB, why go with chap.34 if other chapters will do the job?


----------



## Rick18071 (May 21, 2013)

Thanks. They will need to do section 34 on the existing building because there is no current C. O.


----------



## Builder Bob (May 21, 2013)

Kilitact, sometimes the prescriptive means of chapter 2 through 33 do not allow an existing building to be used without extensive renovations or alterations - such as adding sprinkler system, fire alarms, etc. which may not be required by the code but may for example, allow a single stairway to serve three floors and not require a second exit for the third floor......( a very common problem in old town USA with narrow buildings with small fottprints


----------



## jar546 (May 21, 2013)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> Thanks. They will need to do section 34 on the existing building because there is no current C. O.


With an uncertified building as defined by PA L&I, (not certified/no previous C of O) we always mandate the IEBC because we feel as though it is more clear and breaks it all down easier


----------



## jar546 (May 21, 2013)

See the PA Code for this situation since it does not have a C of O



> [h=3]§ 403.28. Uncertified buildings.[/h](a) Under section 902(b)(6) of the act (35 P. S. § 7210.902(b)(6)), an uncertified building that was built before April 27, 1927, is deemed to be legally occupied until the owner proposes to renovate, add an addition, alter or change the occupancy of the building. The renovation, addition, alteration or change in occupancy must comply with the Uniform Construction Code.
> 
> (b) Under section 902(b) of the act, uncertified buildings within the Department's jurisdiction must meet the following requirements which do not apply to uncertified buildings under subsection (a):(1) Maximum story height, minimum allowable construction type based on floor area, vertical opening and shaft protection requirements, means of egress requirements pertaining to minimum number of exits, maximum travel distances to exits, means of egress illumination, minimum egress widths and heights for exit doors, exit stairs, exit ramps and exit corridors requirements under the 'International Building Code."
> 
> ...


----------



## kilitact (May 21, 2013)

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> Kilitact, sometimes the prescriptive means of chapter 2 through 33 do not allow an existing building to be used without extensive renovations or alterations - such as adding sprinkler system, fire alarms, etc. which may not be required by the code but may for example, allow a single stairway to serve three floors and not require a second exit for the third floor......( a very common problem in old town USA with narrow buildings with small fottprints


If they don't do any work to the existing, it is has it is. The new would be a separate building with the use of a fire wall.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 21, 2013)

Funeral Home

Sec 3412 in the IBC is easier to pass than the same section in the IEBC  they are required to have a C O if they want to do any work. If the existing building passes sec. 3412 they don't have to do anything to the existing. If it doesn't they can include the work that they need to pass 3412 with the addition permit.

They may need sprinklers to pass 3412.

They also have accessibility issues. Plans don't show restrooms on addition. When I asked about an accessible route to the accessible restrooms they said what accessible restrooms?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 21, 2013)

As far as the requirements for sprinklers the IEBC is quite clear that if there is no increase to the existing fire area then sprinklers are not required. This supports kilitact's position of using a fire wall or fire barrier to achieve this. Any work required in the existing portion would be under alterations and probably not enough to trigger sprinklers in the existing portion.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 22, 2013)

Here in PA a commercial building that has no C O is considered a illegally occupied building. As long as they don't do any thing that requires a permit we leave them alone. But if they are working or change of occupancy they are required to either bring it up to code or pass sec 3412 or the same section in IEBC  I heard that PA is the only state doing this.

So in order to get a passing score in 3412 they may need sprinklers, or more exits, or they might not need to do anything.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 22, 2013)

Not according to #2 of what jar posted


----------



## jar546 (May 22, 2013)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> Here in PA a commercial building that has no C O is considered a illegally occupied building. *As long as they don't do any thing that requires a permit we leave them alone*. But if they are working or change of occupancy they are required to either bring it up to code or pass sec 3412 or the same section in IEBC  I heard that PA is the only state doing this. So in order to get a passing score in 3412 they may need sprinklers, or more exits, or they might not need to do anything.


I do not agree with what is in bold above after I have had several of these situations and reviewed them with L&I directly:

I had several very long conversations with Jon Balson from L&I before he retired about these situations.  I asked what is expected of us and what L&I does in these situations and each conversation I was told the exact same thing:

1) All buildings are required to have a certificate of occupancy.

2) Once you are aware that you have an uncertified building, they must comply with the UCC whether or not then plan on doing any work.  (uncertified means they never went through L&I like they were suppose to, to begin with therefore you cannot grandfather what was done illegally to begin with).  Your awareness to an uncertified building puts the responsibility ball in your court according to L&I.  He told me they deal with these issues every day.

3) You can send an email to Sharon Foose at L&I to do a records search which goes back to 1927.  Once you are aware it is uncertified, you must act on it.  This is not a popular thing to do, believe me.

The key here is to not be aware.  In my case, people were trying to lease out a building and the owner and new tenant approached us to find out what they would need to do.  I told them the basics that they did not want to hear so I directed them to go to L&I to see if there was an existing CofO on the property.  We were notified by them and then we verified with L&I that it was an uncertified building.  At that point, Balson said I now have a legal obligation to ensure the building is brought up to code under the UCC whether or not it was going to change occupancy.  If it is uncertified, there is no C of O so anything they want to do is a change of occupancy.

I'll take this explanation one step further so you understand that the people of today are paying for the sins of their grandfathers.

Case in point:

Beauty shop in business for 30 years.  Owner mom wants to retire and sell the building.  New owner calls us and says she needs a C of O for her beauty license.  She says the business is going to stay the same but since she is the new owner, this is what they want.  I say call L&I and see if they can find the old one because I don't need to know about it if things are staying the same.  No license found, former owner admits they converted the 1st floor into beauty shop without L&I and just got a local zoning permit.  Guess who now has to bring the beauty shop up to today's standards under the PA UCC?  Not a popular thing to enforce but necessary and part of your responsibility.  So instead of buying a building a having a new paint job, she had to spend over $10,000.

It is what it is.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 22, 2013)

but we also want to keep our job.


----------



## kilitact (May 22, 2013)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> but we also want to keep our job.


At what cost?


----------



## jar546 (May 22, 2013)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> but we also want to keep our job.


Hence the mantra of Pennsylvania code officials.  Lets look the other way because the local municipalities vote on our job and we don't want to make waves by following the law because the municipality does not have to give a reason for replacing you.  This is why the system is broke and the code officials and inspectors are simply sacrificial lambs for the municipalities since only inspectors, BCOs and plan reviewers get audited, not the actual town.

Then again, what public official asked you to look the other way?


----------



## tmurray (May 23, 2013)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> but we also want to keep our job.


Firing someone to do a job they were asked to do (including incidental legal responsibilities) is not only short sighted, but here in Canada, considered wrongful dismissal and is illegal.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 23, 2013)

I am mostly just doing commercial plan reviews and some inspections in different townships. Not a BCO anywhere. I don't think a planreveiwer can get in any trouble, usually the BCO does. So no politician asked me to look the other way, only BCO's.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 24, 2013)

Could anyone tell me what you do in other states when you come across a commercial building that has not got a C.  O. when it was built or work was done when inspections where required at that time?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 24, 2013)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> Could anyone tell me what you do in other states when you come across a commercial building that has not got a C.  O. when it was built or work was done when inspections where required at that time?


102.6 Existing structures.

The* legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change*, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code , or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.      _    A CO is not required on an existing building_


----------



## jar546 (May 24, 2013)

102.6 does not apply in Pennsylvania.  None of chapter 1 applies. PA has it's own administrative section.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 24, 2013)

He asked about other states and how we handle older buildings without a CO. Simple answer is "They are permitted and a CO is not required"


----------



## jar546 (May 24, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> He asked about other states and how we handle older buildings without a CO. Simple answer is "They are permitted and a CO is not required"


Yes Sir, completely understand.  Just making a note about how PA does not use Chapter 1 because we get that response from a lot of RDP's who quote chapter 1 and I have to tell them.  "That's really nice but it does not mean anything in PA"


----------



## Jim B (Jul 9, 2013)

Jar546, the section of the PA UCC that your are using is only form jurisdiction that PA L&I has jurisdiction or if your jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance that allows you to use the PA L&I method. Also, PA L&I has to approve your proposed ordinance.

In jurisdiction where PA L&I has no authority, the use of Compliance Alternatives from IBC Chapter 34 or IBC Chapter 13 should be used:

PA UCC Reg; § 403.28. Uncertified buildings.

© All of the following apply to uncertified buildings

*where the Department does not have jurisdiction *

and which are not governed under subsection (a):



(1) A construction code official shall issue a certificate of occupancy to an uncertified building if it meets the requirements of the latest version of the “International Existing Building Code” or Chapter 34 of the “International Building Code.” The construction code official shall utilize the code for the municipality which best applies, in the official’s professional judgment.


(2) A construction code official may deny the issuance of a certificate of occupancy if the official deems that a building is unsafe because of inadequate means of egress, inadequate lighting and ventilation, fire hazards or other dangers to human life or to public welfare.


(3) A municipality governed under this subsection may utilize the standards of subsection (b) for the issuance of certificates of occupancy to uncertified buildings if the municipality adopts an ordinance.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 9, 2013)

Jim B said:
			
		

> Jar546, the section of the PA UCC that your are using is only form jurisdiction that PA L&I has jurisdiction or if your jurisdiction has adopted an ordinance that allows you to use the PA L&I method. Also, PA L&I has to approve your proposed ordinance.In jurisdiction where PA L&I has no authority, the use of Compliance Alternatives from IBC Chapter 34 or IBC Chapter 13 should be used:
> 
> PA UCC Reg; § 403.28. Uncertified buildings.
> 
> ...


I posted the entire section, including what you just posted.  I am aware of the language and do not know whether or not the municipality in question adopted subsection (b) or not.  The information is there for the AHJ to determine which section applies.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 9, 2013)

> _(1) A construction code official shall issue a certificate of occupancy to an uncertified building if it meets the requirements of the latest version of the "International Existing Building Code" or Chapter 34 of the "International Building Code." The construction code official __*shall utilize the code for the municipality which best applies, in the official's professional judgment*__._


My favorite part of the code for those of us that can't use subsection ©

IEBC it is


----------

