# change of occupancy



## BSSTG (Aug 16, 2012)

Greetings all,

Well, I have a unique question.

We have a very old 2 story house built about 80 years ago or so. At some time in the past 15 years the house was converted into a daycare. I don't know exactly when. The daycare was operated for at least a few years and then closed down. When I first came here 3 years ago the owner of the daycare wanted to reopen it as a daycare. Since it was a business they had to have another occupancy inspection as is policy here. There were issues with the setup and it flunked both my inspection and the health department. Then the owner decided not to do the repairs and it has remained closed all of this time. Now the owners daughter wants to move in and use it as a house again. As far as I'm concerned, the property should be brought up to current code standards as it is a change of occupancy. However, what is bothersome is that when the original usage was changed to a daycare, it was never issued a certificate of occupancy even though it had the fire marshall's blessing and back then the City did issue C/O's.

Bottom line is I don't think the old daycare was actually a legal occupancy as there is no record of a C/O being issued. If that is the case, should I still require the building be brought up to adopted Codes for a R3?

thanks as always

BS


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 16, 2012)

Short answer No

The IBC allows a daycare with 5 or fewer to be an R-3. Are you using the IBC?

Appendix M of the IRC allows a daycare in an IRC building if specifically adopted with no limit on the number of children.

Check your state regulations, Ours specifically allows a day care of 12 within an IRC dwelling

However now would be a good time to at least get smoke detectors installed and other live safety issues you may see.


----------



## BSSTG (Aug 16, 2012)

This was a full blown daycare. Lots of kids. It was never intended to be a daycare with 5 or fewer.

BS


----------



## cda (Aug 16, 2012)

but it was a house to begin with???

what do you want windows and smoke alarms???


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 16, 2012)

BSSTG,

I am guessing that no C. of O. exists for the 80 yr. old residence

either. You may want to seek minimal upgrades like "cda" mentioned,

..smokes and at least one EE&RO in the sleeping rooms. Also, if an

address is not currently installed on the structure, request one in

compliance with Section R321.

.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 16, 2012)

> As far as I'm concerned, the property should be brought up to current code standards as it is a change of occupancy


3408.1 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 occupancies or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancies. 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 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.



A R-3 is a less hazardeous use than a daycare with a lot of children and you get to detemine what code improvements are needed to keep the future residents safe without requiring everything to meet code, hand rail on stairs, bollard spacing,  egress windows, interconnected smoke detectors to name a few. Egress windows could be a major improvement if they will require new headers,

My advice is choose wisely and don't be over bearing in your requirements. A 80 year old SFR that operated as a day care for a few years in reality is still nothing more than an 80 year old SFR.

A C of O is nothing more than a tool that we use to achieve compliance with the  codes. It does not confer a legal status on a building and it can be issued for portions of a building. The lack of one for the daycare use within the existing building is a mute point. how do I make this a minimumly safe residentual unit is the question of the day.


----------



## BSSTG (Aug 16, 2012)

Greetings all,

My bugaboo with this is primarily electric. Here in Tx we go by the 2011 NEC for residential and commercial. The gfci and arc fault requirements are what may be expensive. Additionally, tamperproof outlets are required in R3 AND daycares in the 2011. I think most everything else will probably be ok except for the gas system. I talked with the gas co rep a few minutes ago and he says the building is in dire need of some upgrades. We'll see. I might add that I know the owner and she is a real pain always trying to dodge the bullet. Anyhow, it will be interesting.

thanks for the advice. I listen to it all.

BS


----------



## cda (Aug 16, 2012)

so I guess a question if it was a house and they want to use it as a house, as tom cruise would say where is your jurisdiction to require stuff??

have they taking out a building permit? do you have to approve release of utilities??


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 16, 2012)

Look at IEBC Section 908 That is about all that you could require under the building code. I do not do electrical, Is there something in the electrical code that requires upgrades when a change of occupancy occurs?

908.2 Unsafe conditions.

Where the occupancy of an existing building or part of an existing building is changed, all unsafe conditions shall be corrected without requiring that all parts of the electrical system comply with NFPA 70.  I might ask for the GFCI recepticles but not the ARC Fault    

908.3 Service upgrade.

Where the occupancy of an existing building or part of an existing building is changed, electrical service shall be upgraded to meet the requirements of NFPA 70 for the new occupancy.

908.4 Number of electrical outlets.

Where the occupancy of an existing building or part of an existing building is changed, the number of electrical outlets shall comply with NFPA 70 for the new occupancy.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm inclined to go with cda, it was a SFD, and is going to still be. The change of use was to the daycare, you could force changes there, but I think it's kinda weak to say that since it is going back to what it was before, then it must comply with current codes. And since there was never a formalized change of use from before, well?

If it is unsafe, then go after what is unsafe. JMHO


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 16, 2012)

cda asked:



> so I guess a question if it was a house and they want to use it as a house, astom cruise would say where is your jurisdiction to require stuff??


If BSSTG' jurisdiction has adopted the IPMC, they could cite Section

102.8, 2006 IPMC: *Requirements not covered by code.*

Requirements necessary for the strength, stability or proper

operation of an existing fixture, structure or equipment, or for the

public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered

by this code, shall be determined by the code official.

.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 16, 2012)

Beware of the historical section of the code, it may meet the requirements of the local hysterical society.........It allows alot of leeway for requirements of the current code if the BO decides that it isn't needed.


----------



## Mark K (Aug 16, 2012)

If one takes Section 102.8 2006 IPMC as it is written what are the limitations on the powers of the building official?

What keeps the building official from abusing his authority?

I would like to introduce a subsersive thought.  Could it be that some of the provisions in the adopted regulations could be in conflict with state laws and possibly the US Constitution (Due process in the 14th Amendment)?


----------

