PBW2
Civil/Environmental
- Apr 25, 2003
- 58
I don't know if this is the right forum to post this tale (sorry so long)...but I'll give it a shot. I'm really just looking for different opinions/suggestions.
In 2005 a church bought an existing 10 acre plot and 6,200 square foot building to be used as a church. Prior to the purchase the church officials completed their due diligence and talked with County officials to make sure that the location/building would be ok for worship. A Certificate of Occupancy as an Assembly was issued by the County in June 2006.
In 2014 after much deliberation and exploration, the church decided to expand the existing building. Preliminary plans were prepared and conversations with County officials to determine construction/zoning requirements were held. The church met with the Fire Marshall who toured the existing building and concluded that they would not have to add sprinklers to the existing building or the new expansion. Based on these conversations the church applied and received a Development Permit for the new expansion, prepared a budget, and proceeded with a Stewardship Campaign to raise pledges for the building expansion.
In early 2015, after having preliminary plans prepared by an Engineering Firm, the church met with County Building Department to discuss the plans for the building expansion and determine if any additional items might be required. In this meeting, the County Official, informed the church that the Property was still classified as “Residential” (rather than as “Assembly” as expected) AND that because of a change of occupancy the entire building would require a sprinkler system. Needless to say the church was shocked by this news; they would not have purchased the Property in order to leave it zoned as “Residential.” They tried to argue this fact with the County Official, but the Official was able to produce a document showing that the building was listed as a “Residential” per the County Tax Assessor’s office. The church later determined that the official was mistaken and that a Certificate of Occupancy for “Assembly” was issued in June of 2006. Please see a recap of the time table below:
1. December 2005 – Church bought property/building. County Development Permit states that the Property is to be used for “Assembly.” The owner would not have bought the property if it could not be used as an Assembly.
2. June 2006 - Certificate of Occupancy for “Assembly” issued by the County after a number of improvements are made to the Property.
3. Fall 2014 – Owners decide that they want to expand the existing building. Current building 6200 SF total, addition of 1000 ft. to allow for more room.
4. October 2014 – Fire Marshall meets with owner, owners representative, at the Property and confirms that a sprinkler system or new hydrant would not be required for the expansion.
5. November 2014 - New Development Permit issued for the 1000 SF expansion. No sprinkler or hydrant will be required and is stated on the permit.
6. January 2015 - Met with Building Codes official who stated that a sprinkler system is required for the whole building; regardless of what the approved Development Permit says. He also informs them at this time that the building occupancy is “Residential” and not “Assembly.” He states that it was the Change of Occupancy that was driving the fire protection requirements. At this time the Owner can’t produce the Certificate of Occupancy and the Building Department provides erroneous documentation showing the existing building as “Residential”.
7. January 2015 – Owner meets with zoning official and Fire Marshall who both question where the building codes official is getting his information. Fire Marshall seems surprised, but said that the Change of Occupancy was the driving factor for having to provide a sprinkler system.
8. April 2015 – July 2015 – Owner gets bids from 7 to 8 different fire protection contractors and determined that the cost to install a fire protection supply line and sprinklers was going to be approximately $80K.
9. September 2015 – Owner pays $7K to County for Impact Fees. Calculations were inaccurately based on changing occupancy from “Residential” to “Assembly.”
10. October 2015 – Owner finds the “Certificate of Occupancy” that was issued by the County showing that the building was classified as an “Assembly” effective June 2006.
11. October 2015 – Owner brings the error in classification to County Officials attention who dismissed the Certificate of Occupancy as an error and still insists that the building must be sprinklered.
The church believed and maintained all along that the existing building carried an occupancy classification of “Assembly” since 2005/2006. The Change of Occupancy certificate proves that they applied for a building permit and successfully received a Change of Occupancy to "Assembly" when they bought the Property. They believe that this new revelation should prevent them from having to install the sprinkler system since our current expansion would no longer involve a Change of Occupancy, which was the whole basis for installing sprinklers.
The Building Official has decided to ignore the Certificate of Occupancy. The church is trying to decide whether to fight the decision.
Thanks in advance for any opinions/suggestions and for taking the time to read.
PBW2
In 2005 a church bought an existing 10 acre plot and 6,200 square foot building to be used as a church. Prior to the purchase the church officials completed their due diligence and talked with County officials to make sure that the location/building would be ok for worship. A Certificate of Occupancy as an Assembly was issued by the County in June 2006.
In 2014 after much deliberation and exploration, the church decided to expand the existing building. Preliminary plans were prepared and conversations with County officials to determine construction/zoning requirements were held. The church met with the Fire Marshall who toured the existing building and concluded that they would not have to add sprinklers to the existing building or the new expansion. Based on these conversations the church applied and received a Development Permit for the new expansion, prepared a budget, and proceeded with a Stewardship Campaign to raise pledges for the building expansion.
In early 2015, after having preliminary plans prepared by an Engineering Firm, the church met with County Building Department to discuss the plans for the building expansion and determine if any additional items might be required. In this meeting, the County Official, informed the church that the Property was still classified as “Residential” (rather than as “Assembly” as expected) AND that because of a change of occupancy the entire building would require a sprinkler system. Needless to say the church was shocked by this news; they would not have purchased the Property in order to leave it zoned as “Residential.” They tried to argue this fact with the County Official, but the Official was able to produce a document showing that the building was listed as a “Residential” per the County Tax Assessor’s office. The church later determined that the official was mistaken and that a Certificate of Occupancy for “Assembly” was issued in June of 2006. Please see a recap of the time table below:
1. December 2005 – Church bought property/building. County Development Permit states that the Property is to be used for “Assembly.” The owner would not have bought the property if it could not be used as an Assembly.
2. June 2006 - Certificate of Occupancy for “Assembly” issued by the County after a number of improvements are made to the Property.
3. Fall 2014 – Owners decide that they want to expand the existing building. Current building 6200 SF total, addition of 1000 ft. to allow for more room.
4. October 2014 – Fire Marshall meets with owner, owners representative, at the Property and confirms that a sprinkler system or new hydrant would not be required for the expansion.
5. November 2014 - New Development Permit issued for the 1000 SF expansion. No sprinkler or hydrant will be required and is stated on the permit.
6. January 2015 - Met with Building Codes official who stated that a sprinkler system is required for the whole building; regardless of what the approved Development Permit says. He also informs them at this time that the building occupancy is “Residential” and not “Assembly.” He states that it was the Change of Occupancy that was driving the fire protection requirements. At this time the Owner can’t produce the Certificate of Occupancy and the Building Department provides erroneous documentation showing the existing building as “Residential”.
7. January 2015 – Owner meets with zoning official and Fire Marshall who both question where the building codes official is getting his information. Fire Marshall seems surprised, but said that the Change of Occupancy was the driving factor for having to provide a sprinkler system.
8. April 2015 – July 2015 – Owner gets bids from 7 to 8 different fire protection contractors and determined that the cost to install a fire protection supply line and sprinklers was going to be approximately $80K.
9. September 2015 – Owner pays $7K to County for Impact Fees. Calculations were inaccurately based on changing occupancy from “Residential” to “Assembly.”
10. October 2015 – Owner finds the “Certificate of Occupancy” that was issued by the County showing that the building was classified as an “Assembly” effective June 2006.
11. October 2015 – Owner brings the error in classification to County Officials attention who dismissed the Certificate of Occupancy as an error and still insists that the building must be sprinklered.
The church believed and maintained all along that the existing building carried an occupancy classification of “Assembly” since 2005/2006. The Change of Occupancy certificate proves that they applied for a building permit and successfully received a Change of Occupancy to "Assembly" when they bought the Property. They believe that this new revelation should prevent them from having to install the sprinkler system since our current expansion would no longer involve a Change of Occupancy, which was the whole basis for installing sprinklers.
The Building Official has decided to ignore the Certificate of Occupancy. The church is trying to decide whether to fight the decision.
Thanks in advance for any opinions/suggestions and for taking the time to read.
PBW2