# Change of Use to IRC from IBC?



## steveray (Jul 21, 2015)

1920's building that most likely was constructed as a home, Town records have it as a church since the seventies at least. IRC does not handle COU that I am aware of. Do I get smoke and CO and EERO and call it a day? Would you treat it "as new"? Get anything at all? Going to have to do some digging on this one....


----------



## cda (Jul 21, 2015)

So I take it they are trying to make a single family house out of it???


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 21, 2015)

Are they doing any work on the building?


----------



## cda (Jul 21, 2015)

Are they going to use it as is??

As you say eero and detection for sure.

Seems like you can ask for the minimum on other stuff.

Especially if people are going to be living in it


----------



## cda (Jul 21, 2015)

R101.2 Scope. 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 and their accessory structures.


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2015)

Rick, if any work, not much.(I am told)...Converting to SFD on paper and that is it.


----------



## JBI (Jul 21, 2015)

IF converting TO a single family dwelling then the IRC would be appropriate. Depending year edition being enforced and local amendments, tracking down provisions will be more or less convoluted. Agree that smokes, CO's and EERO's will be focal points.

If converting FROM a SFD to another use then the IEBC (or IBC if IEBC not adopted) will be appropriate.


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2015)

I am good for IRC to IBC, this one is IBC to IRC and I am a bit stumped. Have to hammer through my heavily modified Ch 1 or call my State guys and see if they have run across it as well.

I don't WANT to treat it like a "new" house, but don't want to give the store away either...


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 21, 2015)

It would actually be reverting to a lesser degree of structural strength, means of egress, fire protection, etc.  Depending on what your state requires, if there were any code adopted for that time period it could just meet the original construction as it is now.

Though not the case here but in retrospect the IEBC for example were it to convert to a higher risk or hazard category in accordance with 1012.4.1 "An existing operable window with clear opening area no less than 4 square feet and minimum opening height and width of 22 inches and 20 inches, respectively, shall be accepted as an emergency escape and rescue opening."


----------



## JBI (Jul 21, 2015)

Too bad you're not in NYS. We have an Appendix that would work for this... Appendix J in the RCNYS is an existing buildings code for ResCode applications.


----------



## linnrg (Jul 27, 2015)

what about kitchen wiring (small appliance circuits), bathroom wiring, arc fault wiring, etc.  I thinkg going from IBC to IRC can be challenging and maybe more of a problem than the other way around


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 28, 2015)

Use Chapter 34 out of the IBC it is an R-3 or use the IEBC both are applicable

The IEBC will reference the IRC where applicable

IRC—12

International Residential Code®

101.4.1, 602.3, 606, 706.2.1, 707.1,

807.4, 808.3, 811.1, 907.4, 907.4.2, 908.1, 1103.2, 1103.3, 1103.4,

1104.1, 1302.1, 1302.2, 1302.2.1, 1302.3, 1302.4, 1302.5, 1401.2.2, 1401.2.3


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Oct 29, 2015)

I have a similiar situation here in California, client bought a home with a detached 330 square foot building that for the past 20 plus years has been a barber shop, with a 2 foot setback from city sidewalk. Owner would like to make it a 2nd unit. Planning has no issues with it reverting back to an R as it fits much nicer with their zoning. I on the other hand told new property owner that as of 2010 CRC all new residential buildings need to have a fire sprinkler system. Beings it is a change of occupancy to an R, back and forth we went, then owner excepting my decision, now has come back and instead of a 2nd unit, would it to be a detached bedroom. So, was i wrong in my interpertation of requiring fire sprinklers? could i still make the argument for a sprinkler system for a detached bedroom?, Thanks all from California.


----------



## cda (Oct 29, 2015)

Chad Pasquini said:
			
		

> I have a similiar situation here in California, client bought a home with a detached 330 square foot building that for the past 20 plus years has been a barber shop, with a 2 foot setback from city sidewalk. Owner would like to make it a 2nd unit. Planning has no issues with it reverting back to an R as it fits much nicer with their zoning. I on the other hand told new property owner that as of 2010 CRC all new residential buildings need to have a fire sprinkler system. Beings it is a change of occupancy to an R, back and forth we went, then owner excepting my decision, now has come back and instead of a 2nd unit, would it to be a detached bedroom. So, was i wrong in my interpertation of requiring fire sprinklers? could i still make the argument for a sprinkler system for a detached bedroom?, Thanks all from California.


Seems like it is still a change of occupancy????  Back to an  R?

So seems like your original call should stand?

What am I missing?


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Oct 29, 2015)

With it being a detached bedroom, could one argue that it is an accessory use to the SFR that was existing. By calling it a detached bedroom, they cannot provide a cooking appliance but all else is acceptable, per planning, gotta love the planners and their specialized codes. This particular code has bothered me for years as i live in a little college town, so detached, new construction with rooms over garages, or on the other side of building with own entrance's, designers playing their games,  i have sooo many plan sets that say (Not a 2nd Unit) on them. Thanks for you replies.


----------



## cda (Oct 29, 2015)

interesting..........


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 29, 2015)

Not sure about CA codes but the IRC says

R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems.

An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings.

Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system.

Even if you do sprinkle it it can probably be done off the domestic water supply. 330 sq ft is only a couple of heads, don't let the FD get involved. They will probably want a $20,000.00 system installed, riser, FDC hookup, fully monitored alarm, the works.


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Oct 29, 2015)

mtlogcabin, is a change of use from a B to an R-3 an alteration? with the code change in 2010, it states all one and two family dwellings shall have a residential fire sprinkler system. As this is becoming a new SFR? all thoughts on this are appreciated. Thanks


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 29, 2015)

Connect it to the house with a breezeway and it becomes an addition

Or use IEBC Chapter 4 or whatever may be close in CA codes

* 407.1 Conformance.*

*No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of the International Building Code for such division or group of occupancy. **Subject to the approval of the building official, the use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be permitted to be changed and the building is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups **without conforming to all of the requirements of this code for those groups,** provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use.*

*Did the barber shop have a higher life and fire risk factor then a 330 sq ft residence? Only the BO can make that determination. Residential sprinklers are only designed to give the occupants additional time to escape a fire. You might be able to get an equivalent alternative by requiring additional heat detectors along with the smoke alarms or perhaps notification appliances that meet the frequency requirements of NFPA 72 for those that maybe impaired.*


----------

