The Tavern at 10:40 p.m.: Occupant Load and a Second Exit That Does Not Exist
The complaint came in as a noise issue, but the inspector arrives at a 6,400 sq ft tavern at 10:40 p.m. on a Saturday to find a line of patrons still waiting outside. The floor plan on file shows 2,700 sq ft of dining and bar seating with tables and chairs, a 400 sq ft stand-up bar area, a 400 sq ft commercial kitchen, and a 200 sq ft office. The front entrance is a single 36-inch door leaf. The rear exit through the kitchen is a 36-inch door that is hasp-and-padlocked and blocked by stacked empty kegs and cases of beer. The posted occupancy sign at the front door reads 199. The manager counts 244 patrons and 11 staff. The sprinkler system carries a current inspection tag and the alarm panel is normal. Exit signage is present, but the emergency lighting unit over the rear door does not illuminate on test. The manager says the rear door is 'only for deliveries' and that the posted number came from the prior owner.
1. Calculate the occupant load the inspector should apply to this space using the adopted code's typical factors, and determine whether the posted 199 is defensible.
Read the worked answer
Two calculations matter, and the inspector must do both before writing anything.
Calculated load, using the factors in the locally adopted code and the occupancies as they are actually used:
- 2,700 sq ft of tables-and-chairs assembly ÷ 15 net = 180
- 400 sq ft standing bar ÷ 5 net = 80
- 400 sq ft commercial kitchen ÷ 200 gross = 2
- 200 sq ft office ÷ 150 gross ≈ 2
- Total ≈ 264
Confirm each factor against the adopted edition, since tables are renumbered and values occasionally change, but the structure of the calculation is what is being tested here.
Actual load, which is not a substitute for the calculation but is evidence the posted number is being ignored: 244 patrons plus 11 staff = 255 counted, at one moment, with a line still outside.
The 199 sign is indefensible. It was inherited from a prior owner, it matches no calculation, and the space as used today computes to roughly 264. Two errors typically produce a small number like that: applying a business or mercantile factor to an assembly floor, and treating the stand-up bar as dining area at 15 sq ft net rather than standing space at 5. The sign must be replaced with the calculated value, and that value is a ceiling - 255 people were already over it before the exit question even arises.
2. Only one exit is usable tonight. Determine the egress capacity available now and state what the inspector should do before leaving the premises.
Read the worked answer
Capacity is the narrower of what the code would allow and what is actually usable right now; here only one exit exists in practice.
- Front door: a nominal 36-inch leaf yields about 33 inches of clear width. At 0.2 in per occupant for a level component, that is 165 occupants.
- Rear door: nominally equal, but padlocked, hasped, and blocked. Its capacity is zero until it is cleared and the hardware is changed.
165 available against a 264 calculated load means the room is over its legal capacity even if the sign were correct. This assembly occupancy requires two exits, and both must be usable at all times.
Action before leaving:
- Order the kegs and cases removed and the hasp and padlock taken off. The door must be fitted with panic hardware, which is required in Group A occupancies with an occupant load of 50 or more.
- Restore the emergency lighting at the rear door and verify the exit sign.
- Direct the posted load to be corrected to the calculated value.
- Until the rear exit is restored and re-inspected, order the occupancy reduced to 165 or less - in practice, stop seating and clear the excess tonight.
Document with photographs and a written order. If the manager cannot comply, close the room and refer the matter to the fire official for certificate-of-occupancy action.
3. The manager argues the building is fully sprinklered, so 'the exits do not matter as much.' Respond to that argument and list the items you would place on a notice of violation, ordered by deadline.
Read the worked answer
The argument fails because suppression and egress do independent jobs. Sprinklers limit fire growth and buy time; they do not reduce the number of people who must get out, and the code does not let an owner trade one for the other. A locked, blocked exit is the classic imminent hazard because it fails at the exact moment it is needed, and it fails silently.
Notice of violation, shortest deadlines first:
- Rear exit blocked and secured - correct immediately, before the inspector leaves; re-inspect that night or the next business day.
- Panic hardware and removal of the hasp and padlock - immediate to 24 hours.
- Emergency lighting at the rear exit - 24 to 48 hours, with a 30-second functional test documented.
- Posted occupant load corrected to the calculated value - 24 to 48 hours, once a compliant sign is supplied.
Two things to avoid: do not accept a promise to 'keep it clear during business hours,' and do not let a corrected sign be treated as the fix for the blocked exit. Record the patron count, the staff count, and the time of observation; that is the evidence if the case is contested or goes to an administrative hearing.