# no more spinklers?



## BSSTG (Dec 3, 2013)

Greetings all,

Well the local realtors and developers have all decided they don't like residential sprinklers. As a result, they are forming a committee to look into amending the building codes. It all stems from mean ole me telling these folks they need sprinklers to change the upstairs of these old buildings into lofts. This town is in the middle of a boom sortakinda due to a big plant coming in nearby and several partially vacant buildings are being looked at for development. These will be mixed use buildings typically.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Tx law requires adoption of the IBC. However, state law also allows for it to be amended. Of course all of this has to go through city council. That said, a couple of city council members are probably inclined to allow some major amendments to the Code. I spoke with our city attorney privately and he stated that there have been some jursidictions that have amended the Code on sprinkler requirements. However, he did not quote specifics. Tx law does prohibit the requirements for single family sprinklers unless the law was already in affect prior to 1-1-2009.

I was wondering if any of you folks have gone through an amendment process to the building and fire codes like this. I see it as problematic for enforcement for mixed use buildings. Not so much for single occupancy R-1/R-2. I do know if they plan on making a bunch of major changes to these fire safety code provisions, I plan on being gone not long thereafter. I don't want to be around if a bad fire happens. We already had one a year or so ago where a handicapped lady died in a house fire due to bootlegged wiring.

Thoughts?

BSSTG


----------



## fatboy (Dec 3, 2013)

We did for residential due to pressure from contractors/developers to Council members, I made darn sure that I had/have the documentation to show it wasn't my idea, that it came from Council.

Never heard of trying to bail on IBC/IFC sprinkler requirements..........shaky ground there.


----------



## cda (Dec 3, 2013)

Like you said Texas basically outlawed sprinklers in houses unless your city had an ordinance in place prior

And last legislation it was not re visited


----------



## fatboy (Dec 3, 2013)

But in a mixed use IBC building? I think not.


----------



## cda (Dec 3, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> But in a mixed use IBC building? I think not.


stand alone R-3


----------



## tmurray (Dec 3, 2013)

Talk to your fire department. Fire fighters are way more popular than developers, real estate agents and councilors. If the fire department start a public campaign to keep the sprinkler requirements in place they will receive the backing of the general public and council will be hesitant to amend them out. I had something similar where a bunch of people and one councilor wanted to remove the requirement for foam insulation to be covered. I told the councilor that I'd make sure the council meeting was full of every fire fighter from our and neighboring jurisdiction and media to point out their error to the general public. That was about two years ago. Funny that I haven't heard anything about it since.


----------



## RJJ (Dec 3, 2013)

I never felt that it should be a national mandate. Local communities need to decide for themselves. However, they should have feed back form the fire community, DP's, Building Departments etc. Not just builders and realtors.


----------



## RLGA (Dec 3, 2013)

I'm not sure about Texas state law, but typically if a state adopts a building code, the local jurisdictions can amend it to make it more restrictive, but they cannot relax or waive any of the requirements.


----------



## BSSTG (Dec 3, 2013)

RJJ said:
			
		

> I never felt that it should be a national mandate. Local communities need to decide for themselves. However, they should have feed back form the fire community, DP's, Building Departments etc. Not just builders and realtors.


I'm with you there. Fortunately we have a council member who is a retired engineer and is fairly saavy with this type of stuff. When this came up at last council meeting he chimed in that these folks need to confer with someone who is adept at building codes, construction and so forth. I would hope they would find a FPE to talk with. I can tell you this though, there are a number of these women on this bandwagon right now. We'll see how it goes.

I don't live where I work which helps some. If these folks want to take the bite out of the fire protection requirements, at least I won't have to live with it. I can only do so much. On the other hand, I hate to see these horrible fires regardless if there are injuries or not. I don't think a lot of people understand how devastating one of those bad fires can be. People loose jobs, businesses, property, source of income, you know the routine.

BS

BS


----------



## cda (Dec 3, 2013)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> I'm with you there. Fortunately we have a council member who is a retired engineer and is fairly saavy with this type of stuff. When this came up at last council meeting he chimed in that these folks need to confer with someone who is adept at building codes, construction and so forth. I would hope they would find a FPE to talk with. I can tell you this though, there are a number of these women on this bandwagon right now. We'll see how it goes. I don't live where I work which helps some. If these folks want to take the bite out of the fire protection requirements, at least I won't have to live with it. I can only do so much. On the other hand, I hate to see these horrible fires regardless if there are injuries or not. I don't think a lot of people understand how devastating one of those bad fires can be. People loose jobs, businesses, property, source of income, you know the routine.
> 
> BS
> 
> BS


So do you currently have an ordinance amending the code to require sprinklers in R-3??


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 4, 2013)

Montana has this amendment at the state level.

(12) Delete Subsection 903.2.8 and replace with the following:

"1. An approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all Group R buildings meeting any of the following criteria:

"a. 16 or more transient guests or 8 or more transient guestrooms;

"b. 16 or more occupants in other than dwelling units;

"c. 8 or more dwelling units; or

"d. more than 2 stories.

"2. In lieu of the above required automatic sprinkler system in buildings not more than three stories above the lowest level of exit discharge, each transient guestroom may be provided with at least one door leading directly to an exterior exit access that leads directly to approved exits.

"3. "Transient guest" for the purpose of this subsection shall mean an occupant who is primarily transient in nature, staying at one location for 30 days or less."

"4. "The requirements for automatic sprinkler systems for R-4 occupancies are found in ARM

Yes it has caused confusion with existing mixed use buildings that have a small percentage of "R" occupancy and therefore the "building" is not classified as a Group R. I then use IEBC Chapter 9

901.3 Change of occupancy classification.

Where the occupancy classification of a building changes, the provisions of Sections 902 through 912 shall apply. This includes a change of occupancy classification within a group as well as a change of occupancy classification from one group to a different group.

901.3.1 Partial change of occupancy classification.

Where a portion of an existing building is changed to a new occupancy classification, Section 912 shall apply.

912.1.1.2 Change of occupancy classification with separation.

Where a portion of an existing building that is changed to a new occupancy classification and that portion is separated from the remainder of the building with fire barriers having a fire-resistance rating as required in the International Building Code for the separate occupancy, that portion shall comply with all the requirements of Chapter 8 for the new occupancy classification and with the requirements of this chapter.

804.1 Automatic sprinkler systems.

Automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided in all work areas when required by Section 704.2 or this section.

704.2.2 Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2.

In buildings with occupancies in Groups A, B, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2, work areas that have exits or corridors shared by more than one tenant or that have exits or corridors serving an occupant load greater than 30 shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection where all of the following conditions occur:

1.	The work area is required to be provided with automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with the International Building Code as applicable to new construction;

2.	The work area exceeds 50 percent of the floor area; and

3.	The building has sufficient municipal water supply for design of a fire sprinkler system available to the floor without installation of a new fire pump.

704.2.2.1 Mixed uses.

In work areas containing mixed uses, one or more of which requires automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with Section 704.2.2, such protection shall not be required throughout the work area provided that the uses requiring such protection are separated from those not requiring protection by fire-resistance-rated construction having a minimum 2-hour rating for Group H and a minimum 1-hour rating for all other occupancy groups.

So the questions are

Can the design be such that there is no shared corridor for the dwelling units? If so no sprinklers required.

Are Items 2 and 3 applicable? If no then no sprinklers required.

If corridors are required or items 2 or 3 are applicable then 912.1.1.2 will only require the "R" group to be sprinkled not the entire building

They are required to provide a minimum 1 hour separation rating between the units and other occupancy groups


----------



## cda (Dec 4, 2013)

Texas has outlawed sprinklers in R-3, so only outlaws have sprinklers

Unless a city had an ordinance in place prior to the legislation going into affect


----------



## cheyer (Dec 4, 2013)

I was thinking what RGLA said... what gives Tx the authority to remove that from the state adopted code?


----------



## cheyer (Dec 4, 2013)

Sorry...RLGA...


----------



## BSSTG (Dec 4, 2013)

cheyer said:
			
		

> I was thinking what RGLA said... what gives Tx the authority to remove that from the state adopted code?


Tx Local Governement Code

Sec. 214.216.  INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.  (a)  To protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the International Building Code, as it existed on May 1, 2003, is adopted as a municipal commercial building code in this state.(b)  The International Building Code applies to all commercial buildings in a municipality for which construction begins on or after January 1, 2006, and to any alteration, remodeling, enlargement, or repair of those commercial buildings.©  A municipality may establish procedures1)  to adopt local amendments to the International Building Code;  and(2)  for the administration and enforcement of the International Building Code.(d)  A municipality may review and consider amendments made by the International Code Council to the International Building Code after May 1, 2003.(e)  A municipality that has adopted a more stringent commercial building code before January 1, 2006, is not required to repeal that code and may adopt future editions of that code.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 389, Sec. 4, eff. January 1, 2006.

BSSTG


----------



## BSSTG (Dec 4, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> So do you currently have an ordinance amending the code to require sprinklers in R-3??


In northern areas of the state some of the towns have had sprinkler requirements for R3 for a number of years. The following statute change was enacted when all of the flap came up in I Codes requiring spinklers in R3 a few years back. No town can enact an ordinance requiring R3 sprinklers the way the law is now.

Tx Occupation Code otherwise know as the Plumbing License Law states thusly

Sec. 1301.551. MUNICIPAL PLUMBING ORDINANCES AND PERMITS.

(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of state law, after January 1, 2009, a municipality may not enact an ordinance, bylaw, order, building code, or rule requiring the installation of a multipurpose residential fire protection sprinkler system or any other fire sprinkler protection system in a new or existing one- or two-family dwelling. A municipality may adopt an ordinance, bylaw, order, or rule allowing a multipurpose residential fire protection sprinkler specialist or other contractor to offer, for a fee, the installation of a fire sprinkler protection system in a new one- or two-family dwelling.

BS


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> In northern areas of the state some of the towns have had sprinkler requirements for R3 for a number of years. The following statute change was enacted when all of the flap came up in I Codes requiring spinklers in R3 a few years back. No town can enact an ordinance requiring R3 sprinklers the way the law is now. Tx Occupation Code otherwise know as the Plumbing License Law states thusly
> 
> Sec. 1301.551. MUNICIPAL PLUMBING ORDINANCES AND PERMITS.
> 
> ...


so was you town one of them??

we have had 6000 sq ft forever, but we do not get any houses even that close


----------



## cheyer (Dec 5, 2013)

Sorry BSSTG..maybe I'm missing it but what I read seems to talk about the enforcement of the IBC and local amendments....are you saying you have the authority to be LESS restrictive by removing the sprinkler requirement?...if so where is that stated?


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

cheyer said:
			
		

> Sorry BSSTG..maybe I'm missing it but what I read seems to talk about the enforcement of the IBC and local amendments....are you saying you have the authority to be LESS restrictive by removing the sprinkler requirement?...if so where is that stated?


In Texas an incorporated city can adopt whatever building code they want

Does not have to be I code


----------



## cheyer (Dec 5, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> cheyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Sorry BSSTG..maybe I'm missing it but what I read seems to talk about the enforcement of the IBC and local amendments....are you saying you have the authority to be LESS restrictive by removing the sprinkler requirement?...if so where is that stated?


In Texas an incorporated city can adopt whatever building code they want

Does not have to be I code

Gotcha, thanks CDA


----------



## BSSTG (Dec 5, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> so was you town one of them??we have had 6000 sq ft forever, but we do not get any houses even that close


No. I don't know of any in the southern 1/2 of Tx

BS


----------



## BSSTG (Dec 5, 2013)

Greetings,

What the statute states is that all of Tx. is required to adhere to the IBC unless a more stringent code was in effect before 2009. It is the law of the land. So, if any municipality does not have an adopted building code, The IBC is by default the building code. Same goes for unincorporated areas. It applies to the entire state. Cities may amend the code too. Tx law also requires IRC (excluding the electrical section), 2011 NEC, either the IPC or UPC. I don't know if a mechanical code is mandatory or not. I guess I should know but I don't.

It does seem to me that any less restrictive requirements might be on shaky legal grounds if adopted. (like doing away with sprinklers). But that's irrrelevant since no one would challenge anyway.

BS


----------



## tmurray (Dec 5, 2013)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Greetings,But that's irrelevant since no one would challenge anyway.


Insurance companies, building safety advocacy groups, fire fighters...You'd be surprised.


----------



## BSSTG (Dec 5, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Insurance companies, building safety advocacy groups, fire fighters...You'd be surprised.


Yea, I would hope your right.

BS


----------

