# IRC "Change of Use"



## TimNY (Nov 27, 2012)

Ok, so it's not really a change of use per the IRC.

Pre-existing garage adjacent to the property line.  Construction is non-conforming to today's standards, easily built over 50 years ago.

Proposed to take half of the garage and make it into a "pool house".. ie a little sitting room adjacent to the pool.  No heat or A/C.

What would you guys be looking at it terms of compliance for the conversion of the space?

Thanks,

Tim


----------



## cda (Nov 27, 2012)

Are you going to charge to play pool, or is this your man cave????


----------



## brudgers (Nov 27, 2012)

Under the IRC, there is no such thing as a change of use. Apply the same requirements as for any other renovation.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 27, 2012)

TimNY said:
			
		

> Ok, so it's not really a change of use per the IRC.Pre-existing garage adjacent to the property line.  Construction is non-conforming to today's standards, easily built over 50 years ago.
> 
> Proposed to take half of the garage and make it into a "pool house".. ie a little sitting room adjacent to the pool.  No heat or A/C.
> 
> ...


Whats the scope of work to covert?


----------



## steveray (Nov 27, 2012)

I think it would have to meet the structural requirements....but no heat or AC gets you out of the IECC....call it finished storage or non habitable and it relieves most burdens....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 27, 2012)

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs.

Additions , alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all of the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated. Additions , alterations or repairs shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building.

No heat or AC makes it a pretty easy alteration


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 27, 2012)

How would you define a pool house?  See definition of Accessory Structure; R105.1 & R105.2 item 1.

Francis


----------



## TimNY (Nov 27, 2012)

Thanks for all the replies, fellas.  I purposely left the question open-ended to see if I could solicit any pointers from those of you who have handled something like this before.  Especially my friends in high-wind and seismic zones.

I've dealt with similar scenarios several times, but this one was somewhat different. First, it's just a portion of the building being worked on.  Usually I deal with an entire building.  Second, it was just a phone call, from an arch, asking what he had to do in order to do this.  I basically pointed him to the appendices and told him he'd know more when I know more.  He couldn't even tell me if there were footings and wasn't too concerned about finding out.  So I ask myself "self, does it matter?"

NY has a bastardized version of the IRC (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse), so I don't know if what I am looking at will reflect what you guys would do, but here's where I am at-

-Alteration Level 2 due to reconfiguration of space

-alterations cannot increase non-conformance

-all newly constructed elements must comply

-increased live and dead loads must be supported by members complying with the code

-"New structural members in alterations, including connections and anchorage, shall comply with this code."

I am not going to tell them what to call it, and I am certainly not  going to advise them to lie about what it is, nor do I think they are  intent on doing that.

So, lets propose a hypothetical scope of work consisting of residing the building and converting one of two garage bays into a unconditioned, non-habitable yet finished (occupiable?) space.  Sheetrock on the walls and ceiling, light switches for interior and exterior lights, receptacles and... a new window and some french doors where previously there were no openings.

Less than 1 foot from PL.. where do you guys stand on fire-resistance?

Obviously, no new openings adjacent to the PL

Newly introduced live and dead loads probably not a concern

Insulate.. don't insulate.. not conditioned.. so who cares

What about new openings?  Shall comply, including connections and anchorage?  How do my seismic and high-wind BO's handle this?

Thanks again

Tim


----------



## TimNY (Nov 27, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> How would you define a pool house?  See definition of Accessory Structure; R105.1 & R105.2 item 1.Francis


Hi Francis,

I don't have those sections in NY.. they are stricken and the work is subject to a permit.  See comment above re: bastardized  

Tim


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 27, 2012)

Hey Tim,

It has been awhile! Just to put this out there whether it will help or not . . .

Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) similarly has stricken parts of the Existing Building Code in IBC and moved it to its Administrative section in all the adopted I-code books.

Have dealt with conversions to work studios, work shops and pool houses; will sometimes have wood stoves added for heat. Once in a while someone wants to convert a shed into an accessory apartment; nope, can't comply!

"*103.3 Change of occupancy. *No change of occupancy shall be made in any structure when the current USBC requires a greater degree of accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation or sanitation. When such a greater degree is required, the owner or the owner’s agent shall make written application to the local building department for a new certificate of occupancy and shall obtain the new certificate of occupancy prior to the new use of the structure.

When impractical to achieve compliance with this code for the new occupancy classification, the building official shall consider modifications upon application and as provided for in Section 106.3.

*103.5 Reconstruction, alteration or repair. *The following criteria is applicable to reconstruction, alteration or repair of buildings or structures:

1. Any reconstruction, alteration or repair shall not adversely affect the performance of the building or structure, or cause the building or structure to become unsafe or lower existing levels of health and safety.

2. Parts of the building or structure not being reconstructed, altered or repaired shall not be required to comply with the requirements of this code applicable to newly constructed buildings or structures.

3. The installation of material or equipment, or both, that is neither required nor prohibited shall only be required to comply with the provisions of this code relating to the safe installation of such material or equipment.

Francis


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 28, 2012)

Less than 1 foot from PL.. where do you guys stand on fire-resistance?  Obviously, no new openings adjacent to the PL

Newly introduced live and dead loads probably not a concern

Insulate.. don't insulate.. not conditioned.. so who cares

What about new openings? Shall comply, including connections and anchorage? How do my seismic and high-wind BO's handle this?

As current code requires with change of use (or occupancy); often with non-conforming structures zoning will not approve any change of use.

Francis


----------



## brudgers (Nov 28, 2012)

I'll say it again, the IRC does not address occupancy.

  So rules addressing changes thereof are not applicable to structures which remain within its parameters.

  I.e. the section you quote is irrelevant.

  Zoning of course is another matter.

  You can get to the dance down that road.


----------



## north star (Nov 28, 2012)

*= =*

TimNY,

Will there be any "new" openings towards the property line

[ i.e. - soffitt vents, other ]?......Fire ratings of that wall if

there are [ RE: Table R302.1, `06 IRC ]?

+ +


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 28, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I'll say it again, the IRC does not address occupancy. So rules addressing changes thereof are not applicable to structures which remain within its parameters.
> 
> I.e. the section you quote is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree. Section R102.7 that mtlogcabin refers to deals with change of occupancy.

Francis


----------



## TimNY (Nov 29, 2012)

north star:  No new openings on the PL side (not permitted and the arch is aware of this).

As far as zoning, our zoning code is pretty good IMHO.  Are far as use, the garage is a permitted use and so is the pool house, so it is a change from one permitted use to another.  As far as location, the garage is non-conforming, but so long as the non-conformity is not increased, there is no issue.

Let me go a little deeper.  Cannot increase non-conformity.  New structural members, including connections must comply.

If you create an opening for a french door, would that increase non-conformity if the shear capacity of the wall was non-compliant?  Let's say it was shiplap siding nailed to studs,  You remove 42 sf of that for an opening.

Now you have a new header, jacks, kings which obviously would meet the new code.  Would you require holddowns (or justification they're not needed)?  What if it is just a slab that can't furnish the required resistance, would you require additional footings?

Last, am I off my rocker to ask the arch to tell me what kind of footings exist, or does it not matter (I guess that's what I was getting at in the paragraph above)?

Tim


----------



## TimNY (Nov 29, 2012)

I would have edited the errors in my last message, but apparently the gestapo no longer allows any type of editing, even 10 seconds after posting.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 30, 2012)

Editing is enabled once you become a sawhorse........

Don't think that elevates it to gestapo status........JMHO


----------



## brudgers (Nov 30, 2012)

TimNY said:
			
		

> I would have edited the errors in my last message, but apparently the gestapo no longer allows any type of editing, even 10 seconds after posting.


  "Godwin's Law" called first!


----------



## cda (Nov 30, 2012)

TimNY said:
			
		

> I would have edited the errors in my last message, but apparently the gestapo no longer allows any type of editing, even 10 seconds after posting.


Is this

A. A man cave

Or

B. pool hall open to public and charging for use???


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 1, 2012)

TimNY does NY adopt Appendix J - leaves a much frendlier path to compliance.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Dec 1, 2012)

CDA...it is not a house for playing pool. It is a house beside a pool. (Swimming)


----------



## brudgers (Dec 1, 2012)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> CDA...it is not a house for playing pool. It is a house beside a pool. (Swimming)


  Does zoning allow two houses on the same lot?


----------



## lunatick (Dec 3, 2012)

TimNY said:
			
		

> Ok, so it's not really a change of use per the IRC.Pre-existing garage adjacent to the property line.  Construction is non-conforming to today's standards, easily built over 50 years ago.
> 
> Proposed to take half of the garage and make it into a "pool house".. ie a little sitting room adjacent to the pool.  No heat or A/C.
> 
> ...


So you have a detached structure on the site.

Is it no conforming due to construction issues or zoning?

It is proposed to be modified to be a pool house.

OK what does this mean. pump room with water heater? shower and changing room. a gazebo family living space as part of the garage.

what is the question.

are you trying to find a way to kill new tress by forcing the destruction of this garage? (I mean you can always find a duck.)

are you trying to find a way not to kill new trees and allow the use in a way that doesn't result in something else happening (like the entire neighborhood converting ....)

Last, will end it with this thought. A city had a signage ordinance created at a time when the night was aglow with neon (remember those old Holiday Inn signs) So they put in place a strict sign code. they thought they were making their city beautiful. End result is their signage was marginal at best.

What is the issue here?


----------

