This is off the topic of fine homebuilding, so I apologize in advance, but I know people here are generally familiar with the IBC and I’m not sure where to turn.
Over the winter, my parents’ horse riding arena collapsed. They are trying to rebuild it. After struggling with the insurance company, they are now struggling with the building official.
Where they live is IBC 2009.
My parents do run a horse boarding/riding business. Just to give you a sense of scale, they have 14 acres and typically keep 12-15 horses. It isn’t a huge corporate operation.
The building will be approximately 120’x75′, pole construction, completely open, sand floor. It is used exclusively for riding horses, with no more than 6-8 people present at any one time.
Based on the fact that my parents run a business, the building official is classifying this as a Group A (Assembly) structure. It seems to us that it would be more appropriately classified as Group U, because it is very much like a barn or stable. Ideally, we would like to have it classified as a Group U agricultural building, although I’m not sure if that is realistic.
Essentially, what is tripping us up is that the building inspector considers the customers to be “the public”. According to the IBC, this precludes the agricultural building classification. According to the building inspector, it precludes Group U classification entirely.
The idea of “the public” does not, in my mind, match up with my parents’ customers. We do not have random people walking in and out, as you would in a store. They are generally long-term, repeat visitors, and my parents exclude people that are not appropriate.
I realize that “what the building inspector says is what matters”, so what I’m really hoping for is any information would be helpful in arguing our case. I’ve looked through the IBC as best I can, but this does seem like a legitimately gray area. I don’t have access to the IBC commentary, so any additional information out of that would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks a lot!
Replies
The following arguement has nothing to do with a building code but if you kick this line of thought around it may lead to some ideas.
Could the arrangement between your parent's business and the people who board and ride their horses there be construed as a type of lease agreement with your parent's business acting as the lessor and the people as the lessee(s). If the answer is yes, then would the law view them differently than the general public. If that is so, then would your parent's insurance company also view them differently than the general public.
Maybe talk to an attourney to get an opinion. Your folks may have to have what amounts to a lease agreement for people to board and ride there.
Is the Building Official; a)persuadable at all or is he just b) diggiing in his heals? If the answer is b) then you may be out of luck regardless of what the law says.
Good luck. I don't envy you.
Make it a "club"?
Suggesstion: Make it a "Club" or "Society" (closed membership, no longer public access).
One more suggestion
I assume they aren't the only ones in that state and perhaps in that jurisdiction that have a stable. I'd hunt out others in similar characteristics and see how their buildings are classified. Might give you the ammo you need to convince the inspector.
Assembly Group A4
which is described as "intended for viewing of indoor sporting events and activities with spectator seating,.." is the closest group that might apply.
Building inspectors are frequently uniformed, idiotic clerks that have no clue, but still retain authority over subjects they do not understand. This is the case here. No competent code official would consider a horse barn as an assembly structure.
Did your parents apply for a building permit? If so, did they refer to space as an "arena"?
The can of worms has been opened, it seems. IF plans for the new structure (I am assuming they are building a new structire and not repairing the old one) were created by an Architect, as might be required, the archy should be able to perform a Code Review that establishes the use group and other code parameters that apply and are met by the plans. If this has not been done, get it done and the the problem doesn't exist (maybe).
I've dealt with many code officials over the years and butted heads many times. They say you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but sometimes a flysawtter is needed.
One approach, if the inspector is simply wrong, is the "ignorance" approach. You ask this, obviously very intelligent ,individual to explain which part of the code makes this barn an assebly space. Sometimes, as they actually read the code sections that apply, such that they can demonstrate their great knowlede to us morons, they discover that they are actually wrong!
Alternately, with solid knowledge to the contrary, they can appeal the classification. This will piss off the idiot that was wrong and may make things worse. (Building inspectors are also usually hired through nepotism of sorts and the moron has a job for life because his brother in law is an alderman or something, so beware).
OTOH, what is the consequences of the classification? Fire exits, ventilation, bathroom facilities? Is it worth fighting? Just my $0.02
My initial thought was to go the club route so I have to say I like that.
Alternatively, they could terminate the business and apply for the permit as a building for personal use. Then once the building is up and the inspector is satisfied, you go back and start the business back up. Of course, this assumes you have proper zoning and aren't already operating on a special use permit. If you are zoned properly, you don't have to go through the plan commission or the building inspector to open a business. You just get your license and hang out your shingle. However, there will be heck to pay if they ever need to cross paths with the building dept again.
A few general observations - not just for the OP, but for every builder out there .....
One of the first matters to address in applying any code is the matter of classification. After all, we have different rules for garages than for bedrooms, don't we?
The details of a design, as well as the area's history of particular problems, have a lot to do with the ways the code is applied. For example, bringing plumbing to a detached garage / workshop is often opposed because of fears that the place will be converted to an illegal apartment.
Just as important can be the role of a professional. If the architect goes to the city and calls it an agricultural building, they're far more likely to accept his judgement.
A 'place of assembly' suggest a certain quantity of people being present. "Agricultural" may bring about another set of requirements (such as an 'equipotential bond"). It's quite common for a larger structure to have different classifications for different areas. The specifics will depend on the details of the design.
Too often folks try to play lawyer and 'beat' the code. That's not the way to do it; rather, apply the code fairly, and you're far more likely to find a sympathetic ear at city hall.
As a commercial establishment, I'm surprised that the city has not insisted that an architect sign off on the plans.
Best of luck.
You guys are great
I really appreciate the input.
We have already been kicking around the idea of creating a "club" for purposes of "excluding" the "public". If necessary, I plan on casually running this past the building official to see if it flies. I'm glad to see that some other people think it might be a valid response, it gives me some hope that it might work.
Terminating and re-creating the business is not really an option. Summer is the busy season, and shutting everything down for three months would have a huge impact.
Did your parents apply for a building permit? If so, did they refer to space as an "arena"?
Hah, as I've been going through this, I'm starting to suspect that is where the problem started. There is obviously a huge difference between an A-4 "arena" and a horse-riding "arena" with no seating, no public access, and no more than 6-8 occupants. This seems to have been missed by the building official.
The consequences are, unfortunately, pretty significant, as far as we can tell. Bathroom facilites, handicap parking and accessability, sprinkler system.
As to the zoning and insurance, my parents are covered. They run everything above board, with proper insurance coverage required for a business.
We are going to have the plans reviewed and stamped by a design professional. Although they were prepared by a company that builds these types of buildings, it does seem like a good idea.
Anyway, you guys have given me a lot to think about. Thanks again!
It's not clear to me why you shouldn't consider complying. I'd think that you would want bathroom facilities anyway, and making them HC accessible is easy if done from the start. Adding HC accessibility otherwise should be easy to, given that the place horse-accessible. HC parking is a sign and maybe a little paving. Sprinklers for this kind of structure should be straight-forward (the main problem probably being an adequate water supply). Sprinklers will lower the insurance bill.
"We are going to have the
"We are going to have the plans reviewed and stamped by a design professional. Although they were prepared by a company that builds these types of buildings, it does seem like a good idea."
Check with your jurisdiction - that's illegal in New Jersey (for instance).
What's illegal in NJ? Having a licensed design professional stamp the drawings? Dang! I'm never going to Joysy!!
It's absolutely not an Assembly building, particularly since occupancy is < 50 persons. The BO may not have latitude over whether or not it's a public building or not, but he does have latitude over classification, which should be Type U or possibly Type B (more typical for < 50 persons).
Your state most likely adopts the UBC as a statewide uniform code - thus there are likely people in your state offices offering 'Code Assistance' for such interpretations - I would recommend contacting them.
IMO I'd say that it is occupied by the public regardless of whether they are 'special clients' or not. But maybe you've called it the wrong thing. Maybe you can call it what you want, but it would need to be consistent w/ what it looks like. A garage door on a room MAY not be able to be called anything but 'a garage' (which has some unique requirements that may be different from e.g. a shop or studio).
Even a special club is not exempt from code requirements associated with 'public occupancy' as the code is there to protect any likely current and future occupants regardless if they are somehow 'special' people in some way. I think 'public' is anyone other than the owner.
I also agree w/ the other poster ... seek the assist of an architect to help you/the BO define the occupancy. You may have opened a can of worms by being honest and stating the specific use(s).
You didn't say how the classification is specifically affecting your project. If it is an open structure, what are the issues that you are concerned with? Many aspects of codes are affected by the occupancy classification. But an assembly occupancy usually impacts things like egress .... lots of people need e.g. multiple ways to get out. There are different 'assembly' occupancies, too. If it is possible or likely that many more people would assemble than what your typical case would see, then a higher density of assembly MAY be his reasoning.
It can be important to consider choosing your use description carefully when dealing w/ unusual occupancies or risk the rath of a BO that can't think sensibly.
Sounds like...
you need to install some stalls. My next project has a type A-3 building and the requirements are significant. It is not sprinlkered though - the residential rental part of the project is. We are on IBC 2006. Also looking at the IBC definition for "Agricultural Building" (group U) as said above you need to remove the "used by the public" element ie, a club, etc. Re the A-4 designation I see it says "spectator seating" which you have none.
BTW - a design professional is the person to help with this. My company goes through this all the time. Although we don't use Architects much on straight for sale residential (IRC) we use them extensively on multifamily and other projects that fall under the IBC.
As far as whoever said go ahead and comply - I'd bet you would be looking at between $50k to $100k - possibly doubling the cost of the structure.
He's already had some design professional help .... ;o)
The end
Well, this came to a surprisingly quick resolution last week.
The township supervisors (I'm not sure who these people are, but they appear to kind of run the township, but kind of not) suggested that my parents re-apply for the permit and state that it was not for public use. They talked to the building official behind the scenes and had him approve it.
There are some advantages to having lived in a community for over 40 years, I guess.
glad you found resolution
With no spectator seting it should be classified as a utility and not assembly struture. Utility covers barns, stables, riding rings, etc, in my area.