• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Fire Sprinkler for A Duplex?

EastPhilly189 said:
Thanks Joe!
At this point of going back and forth between me and City Examiner. Honestly realized the importance of having the right experienced team.
Both my lawyer and Architect are pushing me to "just accept, install the sprinklers, and move on".
But its just pain in the butt since it's taking the city such a long time to approve the permit to install it. I'm look at couple of months of vacancy on my investment.

On the bright side, i guess having a sprinkler system gets me better insurance rate, up the value of the house, and better for the future residents.
Click to expand...
Get a new architect and lawyer next time. Your architect should be your code consultant.

Both are not qualified based on the information provided.

Your new lawyer would have a pretty easy case against your architect to pay for the sprinkler system.
 
EastPhilly189 said:
Thanks Joe!
At this point of going back and forth between me and City Examiner. Honestly realized the importance of having the right experienced team.
Both my lawyer and Architect are pushing me to "just accept, install the sprinklers, and move on".
But its just pain in the butt since it's taking the city such a long time to approve the permit to install it. I'm look at couple of months of vacancy on my investment.

On the bright side, i guess having a sprinkler system gets me better insurance rate, up the value of the house, and better for the future residents.
Click to expand...
No offense to the architect (or lawyer really) but they really missed an opportunity to make this easier/cheaper for you. This is quite common in my experience, they are running a business and will do their best to spend as little time on your project as possible in order to maximize their profits, often at the customers expense. In this case they've done the work and got paid, it's a lot easier for them to say "just do it" than it would be to correct their mistake. It's really unfortunate because most people will not hold designers accountable either because they don't know any better, or don't want to waste the time and energy it would take to correct.
redeyedfly said:
Get a new architect and lawyer next time. Your architect should be your code consultant.

Both are not qualified based on the information provided.

Your new lawyer would have a pretty easy case against your architect to pay for the sprinkler system.
Click to expand...
I agree, this would be fully justifiable and warranted.

All that said I am in favor of adding a sprinkler system to a residence for all the reasons you mentioned.
 
May be an intended condition of the variance mentioned in the original post. Whatever the case, a free sprinkler courtesy of architects stupidity looking like a solid logical solution here.
 
If one were to pursue a claim against the architect, the owner would not be entitled to a fire sprinkler system at the architect's cost. If the owner gets a fire sprinkler system out of the deal, they are reasonably expected to pay for it. Anything otherwise would be unjust enrichment.
 
SH225 said:
If one were to pursue a claim against the architect, the owner would not be entitled to a fire sprinkler system at the architect's cost. If the owner gets a fire sprinkler system out of the deal, they are reasonably expected to pay for it. Anything otherwise would be unjust enrichment.
Click to expand...
I disagree (and my job is to defend architects, sometimes as an expert witness). The architect has not met the standard of care. He did not understand the codes which is clearly in the scope of his professional services. He has put the owner in a position where he must provide labor and materials for his project that are not necessary because of his failure to accurately define the code requirements. This is different from an element the owner would have needed but the architect failed to include in their documents, that would be an owner cost. This is more similar to a rework claim.
 
In this particular case, my guess is you'd have a hard time getting a court to agree that installing a sprinkler system in a duplex is a failure to meet ordinary standard of care. There is no standard of care that says an architect MUST not exceed the minimum standards in the code. Furthermore, since the IBC would trigger sprinklers but the IRC does not, the architect could simply claim that his ultra-conservative decision to utilize the IBC is within the range of appropriate design responses and therefore not an over-design.

I'm not defending the architect, I'm just saying it will be hard to prevail in a court.
 
Thanks Yikes and all of the members here for your inputs!

Unfortunately, the city permit office has been overwhelmed and we still didnt get our water utility permit for that extra line for sprinkler and the sprinkler permit itself. The property is sitting vacant for almost 7-8 months now.

I decided to argue against the sprinkler by using some of the points made here in the forum thhat IRC should be used than IBC.
The examiner, i dont know if she find me annoying or now but it took her 2 months to finally review my amendment application of "Certificate of Occupancy permit" to only come up with

Examiner:
"The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress. As per definition of a townhouse, the proposed scope falls under IBC, so sprinklers are required. Please advise if you wish to seek a refusal.

You are not reading that correctly. It states detached one- and two-family dwellings AND townhouses not more than 3 stories in height.
Two units stacked together is not the definition of a townhouse."
Click to expand...


The front of the property looks like this
goo.gl

3215 N 29th St · 3215 N 29th St, Philadelphia, PA 19129

Building
goo.gl goo.gl

How is this not considered as townhouse? I am getting really irritated with this city license and permit office really haha
 
Wonder why not a two family?

Only definition I could find????

RB] DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes

But not a Townhouse
 
Last edited:
cda said:
Wonder why not a two family?

Only definition I could find????

RB] DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes

But not a Townhouse
Click to expand...
Although she quoted "detached one- and two-family dwellings"

"detached" is what they are using to eliminate 1 or 2 dwellings since mine is an attached townhouse in the middle of the row.
 
EastPhilly189 said:
Although she quoted "detached one- and two-family dwellings"

"detached" is what they are using to eliminate 1 or 2 dwellings since mine is an attached townhouse in the middle of the row.
Click to expand...


Well if there is a rated wall between your neighbors, or property line,,, YOu might just be detached...


SO the building department is suppose to kind of classify the occupancy,,,, SO what occupancy are they saying it is?????
 
yeah its bricked walls between the buildings.

The building department is saying it is a single family with a variance for duplex haha i just dont understand their interpretation at this point. Wasted 2 months just to tell me my property doesn't fit the definition of a townhouse. Most duplexes in Philly are on top of each other, not side by side,,,so most of duplexs are invalid then? seriously.
 
I
EastPhilly189 said:
yeah its bricked walls between the buildings.

The building department is saying it is a single family with a variance for duplex haha i just dont understand their interpretation at this point. Wasted 2 months just to tell me my property doesn't fit the definition of a townhouse. Most duplexes in Philly are on top of each other, not side by side,,,so most of duplexs are invalid then? seriously.
Click to expand...


I go back to an earlier comment,,, Hire a code consultant to look at the project,,, to advise you,,, to be your mouth piece with the city,,,,, Should save you money
 
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
CODE BULLETIN OF INFORMATION No. 1001-R1
On September 21, 2008 the International Code Council (ICC) adopted amendment RB64-07/08 to the 2009
International Residential Code (IRC). This amendment mandated that all new one and two family residential
dwellings along with townhomes be equipped with residential fire sprinkler systems. On December 31, 2009, per
the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code (UCC), all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania adopted the IRC and its
residential fire sprinkler system requirements. In addition to its own prescriptive requirements in Section 2904,
the IRC authorizes installation of these systems per the 13D Standard for residential fire sprinkler systems
established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). In Pennsylvania, the provisions of the IRC for
townhomes became effective on January 1, 2010, with an effective date for one and two family dwellings of
January 1, 2011. The International Building Code requires all new residential occupancy buildings to have fire
sprinkler systems

They are saying it is a NEW two-family residence.
Which it is.
 
It's not new construction, but it is a new two-family residence as Mark pointed outs since post #9 says "It was a single family RS5 occupancy and now a 2-family occupancy with a R-3 identifier. I am planning to rent both of the units."

It's not a townhouse since the units are stacked on top of each other. It's not a detached 2-family residence since there are no side yards. I'm afraid the city is right that the IBC applies.

It's likely that other similar residences were either built before the code made this distinction, or they may have been converted without a permit or by greasing the inspector's palm.
 
mark handler said:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
CODE BULLETIN OF INFORMATION No. 1001-R1
On September 21, 2008 the International Code Council (ICC) adopted amendment RB64-07/08 to the 2009
International Residential Code (IRC). This amendment mandated that all new one and two family residential
dwellings along with townhomes be equipped with residential fire sprinkler systems. On December 31, 2009, per
the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code (UCC), all jurisdictions in Pennsylvania adopted the IRC and its
residential fire sprinkler system requirements. In addition to its own prescriptive requirements in Section 2904,
the IRC authorizes installation of these systems per the 13D Standard for residential fire sprinkler systems
established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). In Pennsylvania, the provisions of the IRC for
townhomes became effective on January 1, 2010, with an effective date for one and two family dwellings of
January 1, 2011. The International Building Code requires all new residential occupancy buildings to have fire
sprinkler systems

They are saying it is a NEW two-family residence.
Which it isi
Click to expand...

mark handler said:
I have an existing one family over a vacant commerical space located in a CMX-3 zone. I am wanting to apply for a visitors accomodation use permit which is allowed for non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year. My question is whether the application of the user permit will trigger a change of occupancy and thus sprinkler and possibly code updates. If i am already an existing R3 (IBC or IRC)? Then im fuzzy on whether a new CO would be needed. Its a total maze to make sense of this stuff.
Click to expand...
 
I have an existing one family over a vacant commerical space located in a CMX-3 zone. I am wanting to apply for a visitors accomodation use permit which is allowed for non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year. My question is whether the application of the user permit will trigger a change of occupancy and thus sprinkler and possibly code updates. If i am already an existing R3 (IBC or IRC)? Then im fuzzy on whether a new CO would be needed. Its a total maze to make sense of this stuff.
 
Phillyrental1 said:
I have an existing one family over a vacant commerical space located in a CMX-3 zone. I am wanting to apply for a visitors accomodation use permit which is allowed for non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year. My question is whether the application of the user permit will trigger a change of occupancy and thus sprinkler and possibly code updates. If i am already an existing R3 (IBC or IRC)? Then im fuzzy on whether a new CO would be needed. Its a total maze to make sense of this stuff.
Click to expand...


Welcome

I am thinking should not.

Are there any special city code requirements "non owner occupied Short terms rentals of more than 180 days year" you can post.

Does someone live in it now??? owner,, renter??
 
Long term renters are in place. Per Philadelphia..

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY: A change in the use of a building or a portion of a building that results in any of the following:

1. A change of occupancy classification.

2. A change from one group to another group within an occupancy classification.

3. Any change in use within a group for which there is a change in application of the requirements of this code and the technical codes.
 
701.1 General: 183 A certificate of occupancy, indicating compliance with permits and construction documents, shall be obtained prior to occupancy of a building or portion thereof in the following cases:

1. Erection of a new building,

2. Erection of an addition to a building,

3. Change from one Occupancy Classification to another,

4. Relocation of a building,

5. Interior alteration of an existing building or space,

6. A change of occupancy as defined in A-106.1.

Exceptions: A certificate of occupancy shall not be required under the following conditions:

1. The work is limited to additions or alterations to existing one- or two-family occupancies.

2. The work is limited to minor alterations of any existing occupancy that do not impact the egress or fire protection of the building or space.

3. Where a Family Child Day Care facility is operated in a one- or two-family dwelling, provided it is licensed pursuant to the Fire Code.


310.4 Residential Group R-3

Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1, R-2, R-4 or I, including:
 
So if i understand it correctly. Technically since i am a single family in a CMX-3 zone which allows a "visitors accomodations use permit" by right of way.. i am thinking i am not needing a new CO because i am not changing the occupancy classification or group. So i could do transient short term rentals as the "boarding house" would apply to me. I'm just not in the mood to get hit up for a you have visitors accomodations use permit approved but now need a CO and then they say sprinklers and other code upgrades! As i see it, there is no change of occupancy, no change.of use and no alterations being done!
 
Phillyrental1 said:
So if i understand it correctly. Technically since i am a single family in a CMX-3 zone which allows a "visitors accomodations use permit" by right of way.. i am thinking i am not needing a new CO because i am not changing the occupancy classification or group. So i could do transient short term rentals as the "boarding house" would apply to me. I'm just not in the mood to get hit up for a you have visitors accomodations use permit approved but now need a CO and then they say sprinklers and other code upgrades! As i see it, there is no change of occupancy, no change.of use and no alterations being done!
Click to expand...


I tend to agree..

My question is some cities have specific requirements for short term rentals. airbnb, or similar,,,,

Does your city have any??? As specfic code requirements spelled out???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top