# Fire Sprinkler for A Duplex?



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 24, 2021)

Hi all,

Recently purchased a duplex in Philly and was asked by the city department of license & permits to install a fire sprinkler system since i received a variance to change the use from a single family (RS5) to a duplex.

"In accordance with Section 1011.2.1 of the 2018 IEBC, a fire suppression system is required for a complete change of occupancy to an R-3 occupancy. Please confirm the building will be sprinklered, on the plans."

My duplex is only 1,600 sq ft and and two stories tall in a mainly residential area. Is there anyway to go around installing a fire sprinkler? I rather have people come and make the walls from 1 hour to 2 hours fire which i think is a lot less expensive and time consuming than sprinkers.

Thoughts?
Thanks!


----------



## cda (Apr 25, 2021)

Welcome

Would have to see the entire code language, to see if there are any exceptions

Can you copy and paste or post a link.


----------



## cda (Apr 25, 2021)

So what occupancy type was it originally and what is will it be ??


----------



## cda (Apr 25, 2021)

Most R’s are required sprinklers, depending on the local code language 







						Searchable platform for building codes
					

Explore a searchable database of US construction and building code. Code regulations are consolidated by state and city for easier navigation.




					up.codes


----------



## SH225 (Apr 25, 2021)

I’ve never worked in Philadelphia, so check me on this. The cited section in the IEBC refers to fire protection as required by IBC but a duplex is regulated by the residential code. Philadelphia‘s residential code deletes R313.2, which is the sprinkler requirement. See the code here -









						SECTION R313 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
					

Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes of ordinances in print and on the Internet



					codelibrary.amlegal.com


----------



## cda (Apr 25, 2021)

*310.4 Residential Group R-3*

Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including:

Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units

Is it a zoning issue??

Seems like a single family house and duplex are R-3???


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 25, 2021)

SH225 said:


> I’ve never worked in Philadelphia, so check me on this. The cited section in the IEBC refers to fire protection as required by IBC but a duplex is regulated by the residential code. Philadelphia‘s residential code deletes R313.2, which is the sprinkler requirement. See the code here -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does that mean, my


cda said:


> So what occupancy type was it originally and what is will it be ??





cda said:


> *310.4 Residential Group R-3*
> 
> Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including:
> 
> ...


----------



## cda (Apr 25, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> Does that mean, my



And the questions / answers are??


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 25, 2021)

cda said:


> So what occupancy type was it originally and what is will it be ??



It was a single family RS5 occupancy and now a 2-family occupancy with a R-3 identifier.  I am planning to rent both of the units.



SH225 said:


> I’ve never worked in Philadelphia, so check me on this. The cited section in the IEBC refers to fire protection as required by IBC but a duplex is regulated by the residential code. Philadelphia‘s residential code deletes R313.2, which is the sprinkler requirement. See the code here -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does that mean it is exempt from the sprinkler requirement?




cda said:


> *310.4 Residential Group R-3*
> 
> Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including:
> 
> ...



What does it mean by "Primarily permanent in nature? 
This is the city examiner's response
"The reason we are asking for structure to be sprinklered is because it is going from IRC R-3, to IBC R-3, which requires sprinklers, since it is a complete change of occupancy."


----------



## SH225 (Apr 25, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> Does that mean it is exempt from the sprinkler requirement?


From what is published online, it appears to be exempt. Section R-R101.2 indicates a two-family dwelling is covered by Philadelphia Residential Code (IRC as amended) rather than IBC. Maybe I am missing something. The scope of the residential code is described here -









						SECTION R-R101 TITLE, SCOPE AND PURPOSE
					

Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes of ordinances in print and on the Internet



					codelibrary.amlegal.com


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 25, 2021)

SH225 said:


> From what is published online, it appears to be exempt. Section R-R101.2 indicates a two-family dwelling is covered by Philadelphia Residential Code (IRC as amended) rather than IBC. Maybe I am missing something. The scope of the residential code is described here -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm puzzled too. 
I believe IBC is more for commercial properties than a residential duplex? but both my lawyer and the city examiner is saying that it want from IRC to IBC because of a "complete change of occupancy".

The cost of Fire Sprinkler and adding another hour of fire wall is just too much of a difference for me right now.


----------



## cda (Apr 25, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> I'm puzzled too.
> I believe IBC is more for commercial properties than a residential duplex? but both my lawyer and the city examiner is saying that it want from IRC to IBC because of a "complete change of occupancy".
> 
> The cost of Fire Sprinkler and adding another hour of fire wall is just too much of a difference for me right now.



Don’t think there is anything in IRC, that says a house can’t be occupied by owner or rented out???

Might find a good building consultant in your area to advise you and if needed be your mouth piece in front of the city.,

Well worth the money spent


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 26, 2021)

Should not be a change of occupancy.

It was is detached one and two family dwelling now and it still will be a detached one and two family dwelling when done. Should be under the IRC. Sprinklers not required in PA.


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 29, 2021)

Thanks All for your response. 

Apparently the city is very difficult to reach to and they are very adamant about their interpretation of it.
Seems like i need to install the Sprinklers.


----------



## Joe.B (Apr 29, 2021)

Did you have plans drafted? I've seen things submitted here that could have (or should have) used the residential code (CRC here) but the drafter used the building code (CBC) for no good reason that I could see. Plans get reviewed based on information received. If your plans reference IBC (or local equivalent) then that's how they will review it. Change to IRC and resubmit.


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 29, 2021)

Thanks Joe,
Yes, we've included our plans in the submission. and Lo and behold, I did asked my architect on why he used IBC and the answer was that 
"IRC is for residential construction (typically single family houses). IBC is for commercial but also includes multifamily residential (duplex and larger). The plan reviewer is reviewing the project per the IBC code."

I paid him for his expertise so i did not question any further on it.


----------



## cda (Apr 29, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> Thanks Joe,
> Yes, we've included our plans in the submission. and Lo and behold, I did asked my architect on why he used IBC and the answer was that
> "IRC is for residential construction (typically single family houses). IBC is for commercial but also includes multifamily residential (duplex and larger). The plan reviewer is reviewing the project per the IBC code."
> I paid him for his expertise so i did not question any further on it.



Get you box of cracker jacks back...

Hire a true code consultant. Let them look at the project.

If they deem no sprinklers required 

Submit revised plans with explanation 

Plus if needed the code consultant can be your mouth piece in front of the city

Good money well spent


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 29, 2021)

hmmm i might just do that at this point.
Wonder if they are expensive?


----------



## cda (Apr 29, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> hmmm i might just do that at this point.
> Wonder if they are expensive?


Just call a few

A prelim should not be that much 

Will be cheaper than no project or installing


----------



## Joe.B (Apr 29, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> Thanks Joe,
> Yes, we've included our plans in the submission. and Lo and behold, I did asked my architect on why he used IBC and the answer was that
> "IRC is for residential construction (typically single family houses). IBC is for commercial but also includes multifamily residential (duplex and larger). The plan reviewer is reviewing the project per the IBC code."
> 
> I paid him for his expertise so i did not question any further on it.


Unfortunately many highly skilled Architects/Engineers/Drafters do not pay as much attention to these kind of details. Often they just copy/paste from another project they've done to save time. Since you've already paid them, simply ask them to change to the IRC and resubmit. Make sure that they update cited code references to match IRC instead of IBC.


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 29, 2021)

Hmmm although we have already submitted our plans with a footnote that a sprinkler system will be installed
and City approved and gave me the certificate of Occupancy. I can still go back and resubmit again? or should i just forget about installing and move on.
Not even sure if i'll get inspected or not though.


----------



## Joe.B (Apr 29, 2021)

If you already received an approval (or certificate of occupancy) than you're at risk of losing it if you don't follow through. Or worse if a fire happens there could be some BIG liability issues. If you want to avoid the sprinklers you would need to resubmit new plans and get the approval.


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Apr 29, 2021)

Thanks Joe!
At this point of going back and forth between me and City Examiner. Honestly realized the importance of having the right experienced team. 
Both my lawyer and Architect are pushing me to "just accept, install the sprinklers, and move on".
But its just pain in the butt since it's taking the city such a long time to approve the permit to install it. I'm look at couple of months of vacancy on my investment.

On the bright side, i guess having a sprinkler system gets me better insurance rate, up the value of the house, and better for the future residents.


----------



## cda (Apr 29, 2021)

I like a person that puts safety ahead of money!!!!

Check this, not sure if you qualify









						CARES Act Delivers Tax Incentive for Commercial Sprinkler Retrofits
					

To take advantage of CARES Act fire sprinkler tax incentives big businesses better act fast – their full benefit starts to phase out after 2022.




					nfsa.org
				





Still you are paying a professional to give you professional quality work, hate to see slop.


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 29, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> Thanks Joe!
> At this point of going back and forth between me and City Examiner. Honestly realized the importance of having the right experienced team.
> Both my lawyer and Architect are pushing me to "just accept, install the sprinklers, and move on".
> But its just pain in the butt since it's taking the city such a long time to approve the permit to install it. I'm look at couple of months of vacancy on my investment.
> ...


Get a new architect and lawyer next time.  Your architect should be your code consultant.  

Both are not qualified based on the information provided.  

Your new lawyer would have a pretty easy case against your architect to pay for the sprinkler system.


----------



## Joe.B (Apr 29, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> Thanks Joe!
> At this point of going back and forth between me and City Examiner. Honestly realized the importance of having the right experienced team.
> Both my lawyer and Architect are pushing me to "just accept, install the sprinklers, and move on".
> But its just pain in the butt since it's taking the city such a long time to approve the permit to install it. I'm look at couple of months of vacancy on my investment.
> ...


No offense to the architect (or lawyer really) but they really missed an opportunity to make this easier/cheaper for you. This is quite common in my experience, they are running a business and will do their best to spend as little time on your project as possible in order to maximize their profits, often at the customers expense. In this case they've done the work and got paid, it's a lot easier for them to say "just do it" than it would be to correct their mistake. It's really unfortunate because most people will not hold designers accountable either because they don't know any better, or don't want to waste the time and energy it would take to correct. 


redeyedfly said:


> Get a new architect and lawyer next time.  Your architect should be your code consultant.
> 
> Both are not qualified based on the information provided.
> 
> Your new lawyer would have a pretty easy case against your architect to pay for the sprinkler system.


I agree, this would be fully justifiable and warranted.

All that said I am in favor of adding a sprinkler system to a residence for all the reasons you mentioned.


----------



## sergoodo (Apr 30, 2021)

May be an intended condition of the variance mentioned in the original post. Whatever the case, a free sprinkler courtesy of architects stupidity looking like a solid logical solution here.


----------



## SH225 (Apr 30, 2021)

If one were to pursue a claim against the architect, the owner would not be entitled to a fire sprinkler system at the architect's cost. If the owner gets a fire sprinkler system out of the deal, they are reasonably expected to pay for it. Anything otherwise would be unjust enrichment.


----------



## redeyedfly (Apr 30, 2021)

SH225 said:


> If one were to pursue a claim against the architect, the owner would not be entitled to a fire sprinkler system at the architect's cost. If the owner gets a fire sprinkler system out of the deal, they are reasonably expected to pay for it. Anything otherwise would be unjust enrichment.


I disagree (and my job is to defend architects, sometimes as an expert witness). The architect has not met the standard of care.  He did not understand the codes which is clearly in the scope of his professional services.  He has put the owner in a position where he must provide labor and materials for his project that are not necessary because of his failure to accurately define the code requirements. This is different from an element the owner would have needed but the architect failed to include in their documents, that would be an owner cost.  This is more similar to a rework claim.


----------



## Yikes (May 17, 2021)

In this particular case, my guess is you'd have a hard time getting a court to agree that installing a sprinkler system in a duplex is a failure to meet ordinary standard of care.  There is no standard of care that says an architect MUST not exceed the minimum standards in the code.  Furthermore, since the IBC would trigger sprinklers but the IRC does not, the architect could simply claim that his ultra-conservative decision to utilize the IBC is within the range of appropriate design responses and therefore not an over-design.

I'm not defending the architect, I'm just saying it will be hard to prevail in a court.


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Jul 4, 2021)

Thanks Yikes and all of the members here for your inputs!

Unfortunately, the city permit office has been overwhelmed and we still didnt get our water utility permit for that extra line for sprinkler and the sprinkler permit itself. The property is sitting vacant for almost 7-8 months now. 

I decided to argue against the sprinkler by using some of the points made here in the forum thhat IRC should be used than IBC.
The examiner, i dont know if she find me annoying or now but it took her 2 months to finally review my amendment application of "Certificate of Occupancy permit" to only come up with 

Examiner:


> "The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress. As per definition of a townhouse, the proposed scope falls under IBC, so sprinklers are required. Please advise if you wish to seek a refusal.
> 
> You are not reading that correctly. It states detached one- and two-family dwellings AND townhouses not more than 3 stories in height.
> Two units stacked together is not the definition of a townhouse."




The front of the property looks like this 





						3215 N 29th St · 3215 N 29th St, Philadelphia, PA 19129
					

Building




					goo.gl
				




How is this not considered as townhouse? I am getting really irritated with this city license and permit office really haha


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Jul 4, 2021)

The duplex i own have right to separate ingress and egress for the two units for front and back to public roads, stated on the deed too.


----------



## cda (Jul 4, 2021)

Wonder why not a two family?

Only definition I could find????

*RB] DWELLING.* Any building that contains one or two _dwelling units_ used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes

But not a Townhouse


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Jul 5, 2021)

cda said:


> Wonder why not a two family?
> 
> Only definition I could find????
> 
> ...


Although she quoted "detached one- and two-family dwellings"

"detached" is what they are using to eliminate 1 or 2 dwellings since mine is an attached townhouse in the middle of the row.


----------



## cda (Jul 5, 2021)

EastPhilly189 said:


> Although she quoted "detached one- and two-family dwellings"
> 
> "detached" is what they are using to eliminate 1 or 2 dwellings since mine is an attached townhouse in the middle of the row.




Well if there is a rated wall between your neighbors, or property  line,,, YOu might just be detached...


SO the building department is suppose to kind of classify the occupancy,,,,    SO what occupancy are they saying it is?????


----------



## EastPhilly189 (Jul 5, 2021)

yeah its bricked walls between the buildings. 

The building department is saying it is a single family with a variance for duplex haha i just dont understand their interpretation at this point. Wasted 2 months just to tell me my property doesn't fit the definition of a townhouse. Most duplexes in Philly are on top of each other, not side by side,,,so most of duplexs are invalid then? seriously.


----------



## cda (Jul 5, 2021)

I


EastPhilly189 said:


> yeah its bricked walls between the buildings.
> 
> The building department is saying it is a single family with a variance for duplex haha i just dont understand their interpretation at this point. Wasted 2 months just to tell me my property doesn't fit the definition of a townhouse. Most duplexes in Philly are on top of each other, not side by side,,,so most of duplexs are invalid then? seriously.




I go back to an earlier comment,,, Hire a code consultant to look at the project,,, to advise you,,,  to be your mouth piece with the city,,,,, Should save you money


----------



## mark handler (Jul 6, 2021)

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
CODE BULLETIN OF INFORMATION No. 1001-R1
On September 21, 2008 the International Code Council (ICC) adopted amendment RB64-07/08 to the 2009 
International Residential Code (IRC). This amendment mandated that all new one and two family residential 
dwellings along with townhomes be equipped with residential fire sprinkler systems. On December 31, 2009, per 
the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code (UCC), all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania adopted the IRC and its 
residential fire sprinkler system requirements. In addition to its own prescriptive requirements in Section 2904,
the IRC authorizes installation of these systems per the 13D Standard for residential fire sprinkler systems
established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). In Pennsylvania, the provisions of the IRC for 
townhomes became effective on January 1, 2010, with an effective date for one and two family dwellings of
January 1, 2011. The International Building Code requires all new residential occupancy buildings to have fire 
sprinkler systems


			https://www.phila.gov/media/20190306151907/Code-Bulletin-No.-1001-R1-Residential-Fire-Sprinkler-Systems-Water-Supply.pdf
		


They are saying it is a *NEW two-family residence.*
Which it is.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 6, 2021)

mark handler said:


> They are saying it is a *NEW two-family residence.*
> Which it is.


Its not new construction.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jul 6, 2021)

It's not new construction, but it is a new two-family residence as Mark pointed outs since post #9 says "It was a single family RS5 occupancy and now a 2-family occupancy with a R-3 identifier.  I am planning to rent both of the units."

It's not a townhouse since the units are stacked on top of each other.  It's not a detached 2-family residence since there are no side yards.  I'm afraid the city is right that the IBC applies.

It's likely that other similar residences were either built before the code made this distinction, or they may have been converted without a permit or by greasing the inspector's palm.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 7, 2021)

Paul Sweet got it right


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 19, 2021)

mark handler said:


> CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
> CODE BULLETIN OF INFORMATION No. 1001-R1
> On September 21, 2008 the International Code Council (ICC) adopted amendment RB64-07/08 to the 2009
> International Residential Code (IRC). This amendment mandated that all new one and two family residential
> ...





mark handler said:


> I have an existing one family over a vacant commerical space located in a CMX-3 zone. I am wanting to apply for a visitors accomodation use permit which is allowed for non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year. My question is whether the application of the user permit will trigger a change of occupancy and thus sprinkler and possibly code updates.  If i am already an existing R3 (IBC or IRC)? Then im fuzzy on whether a new CO would be needed.  Its a total maze to make sense of this stuff.


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 19, 2021)

I have an existing one family over a vacant commerical space located in a CMX-3 zone. I am wanting to apply for a visitors accomodation use permit which is allowed for non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year. My question is whether the application of the user permit will trigger a change of occupancy and thus sprinkler and possibly code updates.  If i am already an existing R3 (IBC or IRC)? Then im fuzzy on whether a new CO would be needed.  Its a total maze to make sense of this stuff.


----------



## cda (Sep 19, 2021)

Phillyrental1 said:


> I have an existing one family over a vacant commerical space located in a CMX-3 zone. I am wanting to apply for a visitors accomodation use permit which is allowed for non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year. My question is whether the application of the user permit will trigger a change of occupancy and thus sprinkler and possibly code updates.  If i am already an existing R3 (IBC or IRC)? Then im fuzzy on whether a new CO would be needed.  Its a total maze to make sense of this stuff.




Welcome

I am thinking should not.

Are there any special city code requirements "non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year" you can post.

Does someone live in it now??? owner,, renter??


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 19, 2021)

Long term renters are in place. Per Philadelphia..

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY: A change in the use of a building or a portion of a building that results in any of the following:

   1.   A change of occupancy classification.

   2.   A change from one group to another group within an occupancy classification.

   3.   Any change in use within a group for which there is a change in application of the requirements of this code and the technical codes.


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 19, 2021)

701.1 General: 183 A certificate of occupancy, indicating compliance with permits and construction documents, shall be obtained prior to occupancy of a building or portion thereof in the following cases:

   1.   Erection of a new building,

   2.   Erection of an addition to a building,

   3.   Change from one Occupancy Classification to another,

   4.   Relocation of a building,

   5.   Interior alteration of an existing building or space,

   6.   A change of occupancy as defined in A-106.1.

Exceptions: A certificate of occupancy shall not be required under the following conditions:

   1.   The work is limited to additions or alterations to existing one- or two-family occupancies.

   2.   The work is limited to minor alterations of any existing occupancy that do not impact the egress or fire protection of the building or space.

   3.   Where a Family Child Day Care facility is operated in a one- or two-family dwelling, provided it is licensed pursuant to the Fire Code.
*

310.4 Residential Group R-3*

Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including:

Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units
Care facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons receiving care

Congregate living facilities (nontransient) with 16 or fewer occupants
Boarding houses (_nontransient_)
Convents
Dormitories
Fraternities and sororities
Monasteries


Congregate living facilities (transient) with 10 or fewer occupants
Boarding houses (transient)

Lodging houses (transient) with five or fewer guest rooms and 10 or fewer occupants


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 19, 2021)

So if i understand it correctly. Technically since i am a single family in a CMX-3 zone which allows a "visitors accomodations use permit" by right of way.. i am thinking i am not needing a new CO because i am not changing the occupancy classification or group.  So i could do transient short term rentals as the "boarding house" would apply to me. I'm just not in the mood to get hit up for a you have visitors accomodations use permit approved but now need a CO and then they say sprinklers and other code upgrades!  As i see it, there is no change of occupancy, no change.of use and no alterations being done!


----------



## cda (Sep 19, 2021)

Phillyrental1 said:


> So if i understand it correctly. Technically since i am a single family in a CMX-3 zone which allows a "visitors accomodations use permit" by right of way.. i am thinking i am not needing a new CO because i am not changing the occupancy classification or group.  So i could do transient short term rentals as the "boarding house" would apply to me. I'm just not in the mood to get hit up for a you have visitors accomodations use permit approved but now need a CO and then they say sprinklers and other code upgrades!  As i see it, there is no change of occupancy, no change.of use and no alterations being done!




I tend to agree..

My question is some cities have specific requirements for short term rentals. airbnb, or similar,,,,

Does your city have any???  As specfic code requirements spelled out???


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 19, 2021)

I tend to agree..


cda said:


> My question is some cities have specific requirements for short term rentals. airbnb, or similar,,,,
> 
> Does your city have any???  As specfic code requirements spelled out???



 nothing other than below an a CO if.. a new CO is required.  I'm guessing where a 2 unit or more building even in a CMX3 zone which could apply for visitors accomodation use permit is jt would have a problem as compared to my situation is that they are an R2 and couldn't qualify as an R3 to do a boarding house transient, so they would need to change their occupancy group to an R1 for a transient hotel. Motel.... But that's mt guess. You have to be the riddler to make sense of all these ins and outs. 


*Step 1: Apply For a Commercial Activity License (CAL) and BIRT (Business Income and Receipts Tax) Account*​



Any business operating in Philadelphia is required to have a Commercial Activity License and Philly tax account. Rentals and visitor rentals are considered businesses. For the steps involved in obtaining your CAL & BIRT accounts, read our blog here.





*Step 2: Apply For a Use Registration Permit*​



After you have obtained your CAL & BIRT, you can apply for a use registration permit. The type of use permit depends on the amount of time the space will be rented, and breaks down as follows:



Limited lodging: 90-180 days (owner-occupied) 
Visitor accommodations: Over 180 days (not – owner-occupied)


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 19, 2021)

Mark mine is an exhisting 1 family. So not sure the new sprinkler requirements matter to me and in the case when i am R3 and not changing occupancy or class group and not doing anything to building footprint to hopefully necessitate a new CO.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 20, 2021)

Transient occupancy (not more than 30 days) would change the use to R-1 (hotel, etc.).  You would still be R-3 under the building code, unless Philly modified it, as long as the leases are for more than 30 days.


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 20, 2021)

Yeah i spoke to an attorney in philly that specializes in zoning .  He believes it will trigger a change of use.  But now in follow up to Paul's answer i say hey ok i want the visitors accomodation use permit and plan to do 30 day or more rentals.. then it shouldn't be a chance of occupancy.  And the reason i believe i am right is because i did this same exact strategy with an 8 unit building in miami beach.  I applied for and received approvals to do 30 day or more rentals from the city and disnt need a change of occupancy or any sprinklers or code upgrades.   I swear you have to be a Talmudic scholar to make sense of all these if thens.. its like the code is only specifically written for architects or zoning lawyers and even they seem to struggle with it on occasion.


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 20, 2021)

Paul Sweet said:


> Transient occupancy (not more than 30 days) would change the use to R-1 (hotel, etc.).  You would still be R-3 under the building code, unless Philly modified it, as long as the leases are for more than 30 days.


So Paul if i applied for visitors accomodation use permit and state in it 30 day or more rentals (non transient) then i should remain an R3 and not need a new CO?


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2021)

Phillyrental1 said:


> So Paul if i applied for visitors accomodation use permit and state in it 30 day or more rentals (non transient) then i should remain an R3 and not need a new CO?




I like to do anonymous calls to the city and ask the questions,

Sometimes you do get answers.


----------



## Phillyrental1 (Sep 20, 2021)

cda said:


> I like to do anonymous calls to the city and ask the questions,
> 
> Sometimes you do get answers.


Lol I'll have to try that.


----------

