existing deficient fire wall

[Hyrax4978]

I am looking to do an addition to an existing building that has an existing fire wall. A previous architect put on an addition by use of a fire wall to call it a second building. It is not sprinklered so it was the only way for them to get the added area. The owner would like another addition attached to the last addition they did. The fire wall they called out on the plans does not meet the fire wall requirements of today and maybe never should have been called a firewall in the first place. But it was. I am wondering if there is a section in the code that states that previous rated construction can meet the requirements of the day in which it was built and be kosher in lieu of needing to be upgraded to todays requirements. If A new firewall needs to be built then this small addition will not be feasible. The fire wall will also require to much work to upgrade it for todays code.

 

[jeffc]

Could you please provide details on how the existing firewall is deficient? How far off from code compliance is it?

 

[steveray]

ASSUMING it is in CT.....Start here:

(Amd) 101.4.4 Property maintenance. The International Property Maintenance Code is not
adopted by the State of Connecticut. Property maintenance shall be in accordance with the
requirements of this code and the applicable provisions of the 2018 Connecticut State Fire Safety
Code and the 2018 Connecticut State Fire Prevention Code. All references to the International
Property Maintenance Code found within the body of the model document shall be considered
null and void.

(Amd) 102.6 Existing structures. The legal use and occupancy of any building or structure
existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except
as otherwise specifically provided in this code, the 2015 International Existing Building Code
portion of the 2018 Connecticut State Building Code or the 2018 Connecticut State Fire Safety
Code.

(Amd) 102.6.2 Buildings previously occupied. The legal use and occupancy of any building
existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except
as specifically provided in this code or the 2018 Connecticut State Fire Safety Code.

 

[RLGA]

If IEBC is adopted, refer to the exception to Section 301.3.

 

[cda]

I am going with fix it.

Yes if it met code when built, than good to go. But, you are saying it does not meet code.

Only thing that may save you, if the original BO is still working for the AHJ??

 

[Hyrax4978]

The list on why its not compliant is very long. I am not sure its even compliant for the code in which is was constructed. That was my next step assuming it could stay. Its amazing how some people can just throw some notes on a plan and towns will sign off as good to go.

My hardship here is: If we were designing his last addition today, It would require a fire wall that meets todays standards. So by arguing that his "old firewall" is grandfathered because it was a firewall of yesterday doesn't seem fair. To build todays addition I guess we should meet todays firewall requirements, even though the fire wall is existing.

 

[RLGA]

That's why I referenced IEBC Section 301.3. The exception allows (upon building official approval) to use the building code existing at the time. If the currently non-compliant fire wall complies with the requirements of a fire wall at the time it was originally permitted, then it could continue to be used as a fire wall, provided the heights and areas for each building on each side of the fire wall comply with the original building code.

 

[steveray]

The FM just needs to cite a violation of the CT fire safety code....The designers are likely just as liable for that bad firewall and lets not forget the contractors.....The State would likely give you a mod to make that wall a fire barrier if that helps the "exisiting " situation...

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Does this existing fire wall meet the definition? If it doesn't it is not a fire wall.

FIRE WALL. A fire-resistance-rated wall having protected
openings, which restricts the spread of fire and extends continuously
from the foundation to or through the roof, with
sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow
collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the
wall.

 

[jj1289]

If the wall does not meet the criteria for a firewall. Could the addition work if the wall is classified as a horizontal exit? More details are needed.

 

[cda]

If the wall does not meet the criteria for a firewall. Could the addition work if the wall is classified as a horizontal exit? More details are needed.

If you are asking about the existing wall, NO, because it sounds like it does not meet design criteria for a rated wall.

 

[ICE]

"maybe never should have been called a firewall in the first place." "The list on why its not compliant is very long. I am not sure its even compliant for the code in which is was constructed."

I do not advocate intervention in most situations unless there is danger involved. A deficient firewall that was approved is a latent danger that should be known by the fire department. Other than that it is hands off. However, building anything that would require reliance on a deficient firewall is off the table.