Appeal of Sprinkler System

[BGOBC2022]

Background: We are working on a project that is on the 2017 Ohio Building Code and is reviewed by the State (no local BD/AHJ). The project is completed using Chapter 3401.1.1 Compliance Path 2. The project is an existing mixed use structure with R-1 rooms and three A-2 Assembly areas (restaurant/banquet spaces). The overall building is +/-25,000 SF and none of it is sprinklered. As part of our project, none of the use-groups change except one area that is being switched from an A-3 to an A-2 use group. This area is +/-8,000 SF and would have 250+ occupants (restrooms, kitchen, storage, mechanical areas bring down occupant load). As part of our code review using both 3401.1.1 Compliance Path 2 and also considering Compliance path 3 using 3412, we could not find a way to omit sprinklers due to the change of use. The project kept failing the 3412 Compliance Alternatives path without a sprinkler. Our answer was to separate the changed area with a 2-HR Fire wall and that ultimately allowed us to successfully permit the design with only the change of use Area having sprinklers added. Everything else was able to remain "as-is" because they were existing unsprinklered A-2 occupancies We also called for a fire alarm to be added to the full building.

Issue: Months after permits were issued, the owner obtained the cost for sprinklers and decided they were too expensive and wants them omitted. An inspector mentioned to the Owner he didn't think they'd be necessary and they could probably get rid of them if they used an "enhanced fire alarm system". From our review, we told them that we don't have any way to support an appeal case to remove sprinklers within the code other than compartmentation (which they rejected). The owner felt in the right and submitted for the Appeal anyway, however the State needs a sketch from us to proceed with the process. We are hesitant to get involved due to liability (obviously checking with our agents)

Discussion: Has anyone gone through this before? What grounds could the State use to support an appeal like this to remove a life safety system? We want to make sure we are not overlooking something. I decided to post on this forum to hopefully get a fresh perspective and maybe learn something new.

 

[steveray]

Welcome to THE forum.....Here in CT, the State can approve (and is the only one who can) any deviation from code. Usually for existing buildings and usually for hardship, and if it is a safety item, usually with a trade off....With a State blessing, I would not think you would have any liability as a designer....

 

[mtlogcabin]

Months after permits were issued, the owner obtained the cost for sprinklers and decided they were too expensive and wants them omitted.

Why is it to expensive? Is he required to install a water main extension versus just a tap into an existing main? Is there a developers extension agreement that has to be paid based on fire flow to tap into the the water main? Did he not do his due diligence to know what the cost upfront where going to be? Too expensive is not a sufficient reason IMHO to waive the sprinkler requirements.
Can the state do this? I believe so under 3408.1 or 3412.2.2. Will he be able to get a reasonable insurance rate without sprinklers? That could also be significant ongoing expense for the business.

 

[Joe.B]

Any chance of a community development loan (or something like that) to help cover the initial cost?

 

[TheCommish]

Son once again safety wants to be drive by cost?
Alternate delete the fancy finishes, rugs and buy used furniture thrift store.

 

[BGOBC2022]

Why is it to expensive? Is he required to install a water main extension versus just a tap into an existing main? Is there a developers extension agreement that has to be paid based on fire flow to tap into the the water main? Did he not do his due diligence to know what the cost upfront where going to be?

The reason for cost is that the facility is currently only on well water (no city water) so there was more cost than just the tie-in and sprinkler piping/heads. The property is well off a main road, so installing a new water line while possible was deemed more expensive than the alternate we designed which included a water storage tank and pump. The project already had an emergency generator, so having emergency power to maintain the fire pump was not a hurdle for us in this case.

We did obtain a preliminary cost estimate from a third-party Contractor and so they had the data upfront. They just refused to believe it and thought the numbers we provided them were overblown. It's a situation they've created for themselves, we're just trying to figure out the best way to address public health and safety, our liability, and educate them on their risk. First time I've encountered this situation in over a decade of hospitality work.

 

[TheCommish]

Sounds like pour proforma during the project development process.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Welcome to THE forum.....Here in CT, the State can approve (and is the only one who can) any deviation from code. Usually for existing buildings and usually for hardship, and if it is a safety item, usually with a trade off....With a State blessing, I would not think you would have any liability as a designer....

Aux contraire. Speaking as an architect who used to carry professional liability insurance and who often spoke with attorneys for the carriers as part of my role on an AIA committee, the problem is that the insurers know the building code is the minimum standard for building safety. Any time a design professional goes on record suggesting, recommending, or supporting something that's less than the minimum code requirement, it creates risk. Architects carry professional liability to shield themselves in the event of a problem arising out of their work. Professional liability insurance for architects and PEs is written with the presumption that the design professional will adhere to the code minimum standards. If you mistakenly overlook something and there's a problem, that's what the insurance is there fore. But to put on paper a proposal that you know doesn't meet code -- as a substitute for your previous design that DOES meet code -- would be to invite the insurance carrier to decline coverage in the event of a problem.

It's a horrible position for an architect when the right thing to do is tell your client that you can't give them what they're asking for. I can think of two situations in my career when I've walked away from jobs over such concerns. On one I bailed out before I had done any work. On the other, the working drawings were about 75% complete when I pulled the plug. I wasn't paid anything for all the work I had put in, but I slept well after getting out.

 

[steveray]

Aux contraire. Speaking as an architect who used to carry professional liability insurance and who often spoke with attorneys for the carriers as part of my role on an AIA committee, the problem is that the insurers know the building code is the minimum standard for building safety.

But if the State is approving an alternate or giving a pass...You did meet code......Maybe don't suggest it, but it could be mentioned that the State can give relief or approve alternates....

 

[mtlogcabin]

APPENDIX B
FIRE-FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS

The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in
the adopting ordinance or legislation of the jurisdiction.

B103.3 Areas without water supply systems.
For information regarding water supplies for fire-fighting purposes in rural and suburban areas in which adequate and reliable water supply systems do not exist, the fire code official is authorized to utilize NFPA 1142 or the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.