• 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

Fire Sprinklers 2 Family to 3 Family - MA

R

Ryan Judy

Registered User
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
5
Location
Marlborough MA
Looking to convert a 2 family to a 3 family in Massachusetts and getting different answers on if I will need sprinklers. The building commissioner says yes, the fire chief says no and my architect wants me to wait until I apply for permits to find out.

From my searches on here there is no question that Sprinklers are required in a R-3 to R-2 conversion per IEBC - 1012.1

However for the sprinkler requirements it then refers to chapter 9 of the IBC , where Massachusetts has amended this under section 903.2 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter148/Section26i (the town- Marlborough has adopted)

In a city, town or district which accepts the provisions of this section, any building hereafter constructed or hereafter substantially rehabilitated so as to constitute the equivalent of new construction and occupied in whole or in part for residential purposes and containing not less than four dwelling units including, but not limited to, lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternity houses, dormitories, apartments, townhouses, condominiums, hotels, motels and group residences, shall be equipped with an approved system of automatic sprinklers in accordance with the provisions of the state building code. In the event that adequate water supply is not available, the head of the fire department shall permit the installation of such other fire suppressant systems as are prescribed by the state building code in lieu of automatic sprinklers. Owners of buildings with approved and properly maintained installations may be eligible for a rate reduction on fire insurance.​

Which implies that it would not be required unless it was significantly rehabilitated. However this doesn't address the "conversion" which is where I am lost.

Hoping anyone with experience on this can chime in , or point me to the right professional that could help.
 
Well the building commissioner is the one to address.

I would get from him, the code section he is getting the requirement from,,,

1. so you have it in writing

2. So you can research it and see if it applies.

3. So you can post it here.


I would want to know before I go any further.

You are talking about money out of your pocket
 
Please also be aware that even if your model building code does not require sprinklers, you may also have a local / municipal ordinance that does require it.
 
The building commissioner cited :

1012.2.1 Fire Sprinkler System

Where a change in occupancy classification occurs or where there is a change of occupancy within a space where there is a different fire protection system threshold requirement in Chapter 9 of the International Building Code that requires an automatic fire sprinkler system to be provided based on the new occupancy in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code, such system shall be provided throughout the area where the change of occupancy occurs.

I didn't want to question him further without having done my own research first., but that was what he cited to be relevant. He then gave me a photocopy of the page with 903.2 on it and this :

903.2 Where Required


Approved automatic sprinkler systems in all new, and some existing, buildings and structures shall be provided in accordance with items 1 and 2, below:

  1. In accordance with the following enhanced sprinkler provisions, as required by the respectively-referenced statute:
    1. The following statutes are enforced by the head of the fire department, and shall be appealed through the automatic sprinkler appeals board:
      1. M.G.L. c. 148,§ 26A1/2: certain high-rise buildings constructed prior to 01/01/1975;
      2. M.G.L. c. 148,§ 26G: certain non-residential structures that exceed 7,500 square feet;
      3. M.G.L. c. 148,§ 26G1/2: bars, nightclubs, dance halls, and discotheques with a capacity of 100 or more persons; and
      4. M.G.L. c. 148,§ 26H (if adopted through local option): lodging or boarding houses with six or more persons boarding or lodging.
 
The Building code in Ma requires sprinklers for 3 families, not 2 or less family newly constructed dwellings. The IRC covers 1 and 2 family homes and townhomes.

The 148 laws are fire laws and are retroactive, this is new construction therefor the building code applies

Is the current building a 2 family home?
Is it a townhouse?
is it an existing townhouse?
Conversion is not a term used in the codes that I know of
Creating a new living unit could be addition and most likely a major renovation

Looks like the BO is correct

upload_2020-2-19_19-35-14.png

upload_2020-2-19_19-24-21.png
upload_2020-2-19_19-38-27.png
upload_2020-2-19_19-32-53.png
 
cda said:
Can you argue that you are already and R-2???
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but I think that would be a hard one to win. Although the area being converted has been used as a living space (2 bedrooms in attic) it has not been a separate one. My only chance of that would be arguing that I am at least making it safer than it was before because I am adding an additional staircase, but don't think that works.

TheCommish said:
The Building code in Ma requires sprinklers for 3 families, not 2 or less family newly constructed dwellings. The IRC covers 1 and 2 family homes and townhomes.

The 148 laws are fire laws and are retroactive, this is new construction therefor the building code applies

Is the current building a 2 family home?
Is it a townhouse?
is it an existing townhouse?
Conversion is not a term used in the codes that I know of
Creating a new living unit could be addition and most likely a major renovation

Looks like the BO is correct (I suspect he is , but want to make sure )

View attachment 6482

View attachment 6480
View attachment 6483
View attachment 6481
Click to expand...

To answer your questions -
The current building is an existing 2 family home
not a townhouse
I incorrectly used the term conversion,., by that I mean change of occupancy from R-3 to R-2

This would not be new construction, unless you are saying that it is new construction because of the change of occupancy. I plan on taking two bedrooms in the attic of an existing two family house, adding a kitchen and a bathroom as well as a exterior staircase. Major renovation yes, at least in my opinion cost wise. .. but if going by MGL Ch148 26I it would have to be" rehabilitated so as to constitute the equivalent of new construction" to trigger the sprinkler requirement.

Section 26I: Multiple dwelling units; new construction; automatic sprinkler systems

Section 26I. In a city, town or district which accepts the provisions of this section, any building hereafter constructed or hereafter substantially rehabilitated so as to constitute the equivalent of new construction and occupied in whole or in part for residential purposes and containing not less than four dwelling units including, but not limited to, lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternity houses, dormitories, apartments, townhouses, condominiums, hotels, motels and group residences, shall be equipped with an approved system of automatic sprinklers in accordance with the provisions of the state building code. In the event that adequate water supply is not available, the head of the fire department shall permit the installation of such other fire suppressant systems as are prescribed by the state building code in lieu of automatic sprinklers. Owners of buildings with approved and properly maintained installations may be eligible for a rate reduction on fire insurance.​
 
26L is a local option fire law, has this been accepted by the community? If not an easy answer does not come into the equation. Also, it is an old law and the building code has been updated several times since 26L was available to the communities.

A tough thing about MA is the juxtaposition of fire laws and building codes, you have to comply with both and the exception of one does not carry over to the other.

so the picture I have now is a 2.5 story building and you are creating 3rd living unit in the attic, definitely, a change of use, definitely under the building code, speak nicely to the Building Offical see if you can understand. 1 option to be denied the permit then appeal to the appeals board. 2nd option install a 13D system with tank and pump avoiding the whole water purveyor issues and sprinkler hook up fees and construction
 
TheCommish said:
26L is a local option fire law, has this been accepted by the community? If not an easy answer does not come into the equation. Also, it is an old law and the building code has been updated several times since 26L was available to the communities.

A tough thing about MA is the juxtaposition of fire laws and building codes, you have to comply with both and the exception of one does not carry over to the other.

so the picture I have now is a 2.5 story building and you are creating 3rd living unit in the attic, definitely, a change of use, definitely under the building code, speak nicely to the Building Offical see if you can understand. 1 option to be denied the permit then appeal to the appeals board. 2nd option install a 13D system with tank and pump avoiding the whole water purveyor issues and sprinkler hook up fees and construction
Click to expand...

26I Has defiantly been adopted by the town, I just cant interpret how it would apply with the change of use , as it only specifies how it applies to renovation.

This has defiantly been a learning experience for me trying to figure out the fire code vs building code . Everyone here as well as surprisingly at the building department and fire department has been pretty helpful.

Your picturing it exactly correctly. And if a sprinkler ends up being required , it looks like 13D is OK for R-Use buildings other than R-1 or R-2 dormitories with less than 3 units and less than 12,000 ft.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Not less is a poor way to say you need 4 units dwelling units before this section is applicable

The OP quoted this as his local requirement
He will only have 3 units so he will be less than than the 4 units required by section 903.2 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter148/Section26i (the town- Marlborough has adopted) therefore sprinklers are not required for his project
Click to expand...

It just seems odd that this would supersede the building code because it is so vague.
 
The Ma legislators can make sausage of anything they are given to work with, remember an elephant is a mouse design by a committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top