• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Mixed Use Occupancy Fire Sprinkler Requirements

That's an identical situation as mine. I'm just trying to get clarification on this matter and it helped reading that thread. My whole dilemma is that my building inspector approved the plans with no provisions for a fire sprinkler system. He even issued the building permit. Our financing was secured and construction had already began and then we receive a letter in the mail stating we have to have a sprinkler system installed. I feel like it was his mistake that he overlooked it not having a sprinkler system, therefore we shouldn't have to add one at this point. Adding $35,000.00 to install a sprinkler system puts us way over budget and that's not feasible. I'm curious how this would be handled in other jurisdictions.

I drew the plans myself on a computer program. When I presented them to the inspector he accepted them saying he didn’t require engineered drawings as long as the builder was okay with a basic floorplan. He had me write on the plan that the building would include a one hour fire rating between floors. He never mentioned anything about a fire sprinkler needing to be added.
Looks like you made your own bed, and now you get to sleep in it too.

As others have indicated, it was your responsibility to provide code compliant plans. Sure, the inspector didn't catch your mistake, but oh well, the code and most likely the state laws, indemnify him.

If you had hired an architect, they would hopefully not made the same mistake, but if they had, they carry insurance from which you could make a claim. Sorry, but looks like you are headed downstream and your paddle is still on shore.
 
Looks like you made your own bed, and now you get to sleep in it too.

As others have indicated, it was your responsibility to provide code compliant plans. Sure, the inspector didn't catch your mistake, but oh well, the code and most likely the state laws, indemnify him.

If you had hired an architect, they would hopefully not made the same mistake, but if they had, they carry insurance from which you could make a claim. Sorry, but looks like you are headed downstream and your paddle is still on shore.

I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?
 
I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?

You trusted the government to educate you instead of regulating you.....But seriously, Sounds like horrible customer service to me and just because a designer is not required by law, does not mean that you shouldn't hire one to protect your interests. We would not give someone a building permit for a building that requires sprinklers without at least some kind of acknowledgement that they will be putting them in....
 
I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?

In most states there is such a thing as sovereign immunity which in almost all instances protects the inspector from oversights or mistakes unless you can prove malice or intent and I think in your case that's a heavy if not impossible lift. Unfortunately you are most likely going to have to eat this or he could revoke your permit and/or just not issue a CO.
 
Absolutely not, and I never claimed to be. I drew the floor plans to give to an architect to have engineered drawings designed. The inspector accepted the basic floor plan so an architect was never solicited.
The building official is responsible to ensure the construction meets code, not that you know what the code requires. This is why people who do not have in-depth knowledge in building construction employ registered design professionals.

I agree with others, it is poor customer service that it was not caught at plan review.

It is likely that the sprinkler system will be required no matter who made the mistake. It is now only a question of who pays for it.
 
I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?
I don't disagree that he made a mistake.... but his mistake does not abolish the code requirements.
 
We are in the process of building a 6000 square feet two story building. The first floor, 3000 square feet, will have a classification as Business Group B consisting of office space. The upstairs is classified as Residential R-3. A one hour fire rated ceiling will separate the first and the second story and a one hour fire rated wall will separate the two dwellings upstairs. What areas need to be sprinkled and what NFPA sprinkler system can I use? NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D? I appreciate your input.



Was this going to be where you lived?????????
 
It will probably be cheaper to provide a sprinkler throughout the entire building

If you had hired an architect, they would hopefully not made the same mistake, but if they had, they carry insurance from which you could make a claim. Sorry, but looks like you are headed downstream and your paddle is still on shore.

I don't disagree that he made a mistake.... but his mistake does not abolish the code requirements.

I'm with you guys all the way. In our state there is no way you could do this type of project with out a Design Professional by state law. would also have to have a licensed contractor that should know enough to know this as well or a least tell you you needed a DP.
 
Check and see if there is a local amendment that may not require a fire suppression system. You could do this in my state without a fire suppression system if you met other requirements.
 
I will live in one dwelling and my business partner will live in the other.

Well there goes my ideas

Either turn it into a B or M

or

Do not finish it out now, save some money for a sprinkler



Since you are a firefighter, find a sympathetic fire sprinkler company that will do it for materials and promote sprinklers and firefighters !!!
 
Was this going to be where you lived?????????

Since my business partner and I are both 50/50 co-owners of the building, that means he owns my dwelling as much as I own his. I know it’s blurring the lines but at that point couldn’t it be considered one dwelling since we are both the owners occupying both sides. It’s merely a door separating the two, as a door separates a bedroom from the rest of a house. If so, could I classify them as owner occupied Lodging Houses? Perhaps I have intentions of operating an Air B&B. If that’s the case, the lodging house according to code, 310.0.5, is subject to International Residential Code and not International Building Code. IRC 2009 and later mandates one and two family dwellings to have sprinkler systems installed, but the State of Missouri passed a law, 67.281, banning local governments from requiring sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings. Therefore, the entire building is now exempt due to the fact the second story will now be built using residential codes and the bottom story is classified as Group B and is not required.
 
Well there goes my ideas

Either turn it into a B or M

or

Do not finish it out now, save some money for a sprinkler



Since you are a firefighter, find a sympathetic fire sprinkler company that will do it for materials and promote sprinklers and firefighters !!!


Maybe we are exempt from sprinkler requirements without having to classify the upstairs as Owner Occupied Lodging Houses because of Missouri law 67.281. Please let me know your thoughts.
 
Since my business partner and I are both 50/50 co-owners of the building, that means he owns my dwelling as much as I own his. I know it’s blurring the lines but at that point couldn’t it be considered one dwelling since we are both the owners occupying both sides. It’s merely a door separating the two, as a door separates a bedroom from the rest of a house. If so, could I classify them as owner occupied Lodging Houses? Perhaps I have intentions of operating an Air B&B. If that’s the case, the lodging house according to code, 310.0.5, is subject to International Residential Code and not International Building Code. IRC 2009 and later mandates one and two family dwellings to have sprinkler systems installed, but the State of Missouri passed a law, 67.281, banning local governments from requiring sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings. Therefore, the entire building is now exempt due to the fact the second story will now be built using residential codes and the bottom story is classified as Group B and is not required.

Correction on the typo, section 310.5.2
 
Maybe we are exempt from sprinkler requirements without having to classify the upstairs as Owner Occupied Lodging Houses because of Missouri law 67.281. Please let me know your thoughts.

Show me

Do you have a link to post, to the law
 
Tried reading through all but missed a few but get the issue of the situation. In the event the structure is in a phase where the separated area provision potential MT mentioned earlier on is no longer an option to cut down on sprinkled areas “required”, the best bet is sprinkle it. I read in a reply that it was mentioned you were a FF. If this is correct, I mean no disrespect but remain surprised that sprinklers were not factored into the business plan and scope foundation phase. The possibility exists for a use of sprinklers 13 for ground floor and 13R 2nd floor. Also check with your accountant and apply for the federal sprinkler incentive tax bill break that (finally) went into effect a couple years ago when the newer tax law was established by current administration. Better be quick since it started at 100% for fire protection and may be at 85-90 now and sunset clause kicks in at 2023 I recall. Been out of municipal work for a couple years but know it hadn’t been repealed. Great tax break and could help your finances out in payback for the fire sprinkler system in a few years. Just a thought!
 
Top