-
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.
Mixed Use Occupancy Fire Sprinkler Requirements
- Thread starter brizoun1
- Start date
Great
I would wonder what other surprises there will be
Till you actually occupy the building.
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?
steveray
SAWHORSE
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....
VillageInspector
Sawhorse
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.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
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 don't disagree that he made a mistake.... but his mistake does not abolish the code requirements.
my250r11
REGISTERED
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.
Builder Bob
SAWHORSE
13 system required - areas may omit sprinklers as allowed by NFPA 13 systems that are located in the residential portion of the building.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
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.
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 !!!
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
Might work in that one horse town, you are building in.
All they can say is no, and than you can appeal
Is the property owned by the business? What names are on the deed?
The property is not in our business name but is in our personal names. With the loan being backed by our business.
FM William Burns
REGISTERED
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!