# Existing building exception



## Craig (Oct 29, 2019)

Disclaimer: Not a tradesman, not an official of any kind, be gentle. Not sure if this question belongs here or in the code section.  I’m building out an existing building which will have an A2 occupancy of 90.  The front door is accessible and I am required to provide another exit. Must the new door be an accessible means of egress or does the existing building exception in 1007.1 apply? On the surface, it appears to. Having a tough time getting an answer locally.  Any help appreciated.
Craig.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 29, 2019)

We can start by answering a few questions:
1) What Building Code & cycle year applies for your jurisdiction?
2) What are the dimensions of the occupancy?
3) Is the building sprinklered?
4) Is this a change of use and occupancy?
5) What is the furthest distance from the farthest point to exit discharge or the existing setup?
6) Where in relation to the current and only exit is the new one going?

I know we may not need all of these questions answered but it will certainly help.

Welcome by the way.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 29, 2019)

Also, give this some time to stew in the pot tomorrow and you will get some good hits.


----------



## RLGA (Oct 29, 2019)

Assuming by the section reference you provided, you're in the 2012 IBC or earlier.

Is the building currently a Group A-2 or are you changing it from another occupancy group to a Group A-2?


----------



## Craig (Oct 29, 2019)

Jar546,
1.  2012 IBC
2.  The A2 is about 1200 square feet, also about 1400 square feet F2 (small brewpub)
     with two exits in the F2 area.
3.  The building is not sprinklered.
4.  It is a change of use and occupancy.
5.  It’s about 70’ from the restroom to the front door.
6.  The new exit is at the left rear (back wall) of the building, entrance is at the front left.

The plans have been approved with the left rear exit already, but due to soil elevation, possible drainage problem, water meter and line proximity, I asked to move the rear exit to the rear side wall, probably within five feet of the approved location.  The property line is three feet from that side wall.  I can still use the original exit location, I’ll just have to put in a ramp and landing inside or relocate/move water lines, possibly move a lot of dirt. I even asked about dropping the occupancy to 49 and just having the front door, no dice.  Just trying to find the best way to cover all the compliance/design/money bases.
Thanks for reading.
Craig.


----------



## RLGA (Oct 29, 2019)

Exception 1 to Section 1007.1 _may _not apply since it mentions alterations and your project is a change of occupancy and use. With that said, the definitions for an alteration in the IEBC the IBC are different, which could be the reason why you're not getting a definitive answer.

The IBC considers an alteration "construction or renovation to an _existing structure_ *other than repair or alteration*." Notice that _change of occupancy_ is not mentioned. However, Chapter 34 has separate requirements for alterations and changes of occupancy (plus the IBC has no definition for change of occupancy, thus, per Section 201.3, the IEBC definition will apply). Section 3408.1 for Change of Occupancy would require that the existing building to comply with the requirements of the IBC, but since the charging requirement is from the section on changes of occupancy and not on alterations, it could be interpreted that the exception in Section 1007.1 would not apply.

The IEBC adds to the above IBC definition for alteration as follows: "Alterations are classified as Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3." In the IEBC, this excludes changes of occupancy, which means your project would not be considered an alteration, and similar to the IBC, compliance with the IBC is required for the change of occupancy and the exception to Section 1007.1 could again be interpreted as not being applicable.

Interestingly, the 2018 IBC deleted that exception and the 2015 IBC deleted the reference to alterations--just "existing buildings." If your jurisdiction is looking to adopt one of these editions, you may use that for a code modification.


----------



## Craig (Oct 30, 2019)

Ron,
Thanks for the reply. I need to dig into the “rules of the rules “ I guess to figure out what takes precedence in a particular application, if that makes sense.  I’m fine with the accessibility part, just not sure where and how to send someone egressing the rear exit.  For someone to get safely away from the building, a property line must be crossed or they stay within the property lines of the building in question, sit in the shade and watch the fire.  Even though I own the adjoining property, the officials are balking about using it for egress.  The structure next door is twenty feet away and there are no fences.  Everything is grass.  The building set back on both properties is 0’ on the sides.
I believe an option is an easement for egress purposes if either property is sold or a replat moving a line or joining the two lots. 
Thanks again for the reply.
Craig


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 30, 2019)

You don't need a ramp to make an accessible means of egress. Stairs can be used from an area of refuge complying with 1009.6.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 30, 2019)

1. Do you have onsite parking?
2. Does the rear exit egress to the public way?
3. Is FD ok with only a 3' sideyard for access to the public way?
4. Work taking place only on the first floor?


----------



## steveray (Oct 30, 2019)

New egress/route needs to be accessible IMO.....In the "new meets new" scheme of things..

806.2 Stairways and escalators in existing buildings. In alterations where an escalator or stairway is added where none existed previously, an accessible route shall be provided
in accordance with Sections 1104.4 and 1104.5 of the International Building Code.


----------

