HOME › Forums › Forums › Fire Code & Enforcement › Two unit residential converted back to a single family dwelling › Reply To: Two unit residential converted back to a single family dwelling
I’ve got one of those in progress right now. To me, it’s fairly straight forward: they apply for the building permit and proceed with the construction. This one actually met most (if not all) of 9.8 as inspected, they just loved the spot. I had a previous one where there were a ton of problems as neither the owner nor the contractors used had any real idea of what they were doing. Basement bedroom and bathroom existed and they had added a kitchen in the rec room and a door on the main floor that separated it from the rest of the house and used a side door. No separations and really poor plumbing. We said take the kitchen out and remove the main floor door and all was fine.
There are many occasions where there are options to compliance with the Code. Often that is either provide the prescriptive requirement OR make the building not fit the application sentence. I’ve written lots of Orders that had “or as an alternative” in the Action section. Every time I’m aware of a reasonable option, I include it in my Order.
I’ve had a couple places that as inspected, they fit 184.108.40.206.(1). To meet the rest of 9.5, they would have had to upgrade a whole bunch of separations. I gave them the option of permanently sealing several basement accesses (which took literally a handful of screws) and it no longer fit the application sentence and then only 2 & 6 applied.
With 220.127.116.11.(1)(c) if the building meets the OR component as inspected, I would give them the option of permanently sealing one of the doors and providing a different access/egress point (as that’s potentially relatively easy to do) then it’s back to only 2 & 6.
Another situation is with Fuel Fired Service Rooms like 18.104.22.168. They can provide the required separation OR switch the appliance to electric and the separation is not required.