Laserfiche WebLink
The applicants have presented two arguments. They are as follows as I understand them: <br />The classification didn't change when Atelier LeSueur occupied the building because <br />they were not issued a certificate of occupancy. <br />The City's position is that Atelier LeSueur's architect proposed it as a B-2 occupancy. <br />The City classified it as a B-2 occupancy, and it was occupied for over two years as <br />a B-2 occupancy. The building has been through three occupancy changes since it <br />was used as an elementar\ school. To re\ert back to the original use that last existed <br />prior to 1971 with out updating the building to meet code requirements is in violation <br />of the building code. <br />2)The building should not have been classified as a B-2 occupancy when Atelier <br />LeSueur occupied the building because it was not just adults in the building but <br />children also. <br />The City's position is that it would have been classified as a B-2 regardless if there <br />were children enrolled with the adults or not, becau.se it was not all children full time. <br />The Board's role in this matter is to decide if there is a change of occupancy with the proposed <br />private .school use. It is not the role of the Board to decide if code requirements involved with the <br />change of use are valid or not. See exhibit G for Building code board of appeals authority and <br />limitations.