Automatic Fire Suppression Sprinkler Systems & Renovations: Proceed With Caution

(SOURCE:  Greater Boston Real Estate Board (GBREB), article by Atty. Paul C. Bauer, August 25, 2016; by Shira Schoenberg, August 18, 2016;

While surfing the Internet for items of interest to put into this issue, I happened upon the following court case recently decided by The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).

In 1990, a Massachusetts law went into effect giving cities and towns the authority to adopt building codes that require installation of sprinklers in structures containing four or more apartments.  The statute applies to new construction and to existing buildings that are “… substantially rehabilitated so as to constitute the equivalent of new construction.”  The question is: What defines substantial rehabilitation?

Around ten years ago, a Holyoke developer purchased several abandoned and boarded up buildings, intending to make them habitable again.  He applied for and received the necessary permits from the city to proceed with his project.  His applications made it clear that because structural work was not involved, he did not believe he had to install sprinkler systems.

In 2012, when the project was nearly complete, the city fire chief did the final inspection and ordered the installation of automatic sprinklers.  The developer, Robert MacLaurin, claimed this would cost more than $120,000 for each building.  He then began is journey through the appeals jungle.

At this point, it is important to note that, and as recognized by the SJC, “… the residential sprinkler provision is the only section of the fire prevention act requiring the installation of automatic sprinklers that does not contain language affording a statutory right of appeal.”

As such, the fire marshal, the building code appeals board, and the automatic sprinkler appeals board, all declined to hear Mr. MacLaurin’s appeal claiming they did not have jurisdiction in the matter.  Following this, he plead his case in Housing Court, only to have the judge affirm the decision of the fire chief.  With determination, and with must have been great expense, Mr. MacLaurin maneuvered through the legal system and was ultimately able to have his case reviewed by our state’s highest court.

In Robert MacLaurin & another vs. City of Holyoke & others, The Court attempted to interpret the phrase “… substantially rehabilitated so as to constitute the equivalent of new construction.”  They ruled: “… in order to require the installation of sprinklers in an existing multi-unit residential building, the rehabilitation must be so substantial that the physical structure is rendered ‘the equivalent of new construction,’ i.e., in essence as good as new.  Where the rehabilitation is suitably substantial in this regard, a corollary is that the cost of installation of automatic sprinklers ordinarily will approximate the cost of installing sprinklers in a comparable newly constructed building.”  (All emphasis, mine).

The Court admonished the City of Holyoke, writing, “… a hearing would have been appropriate.”  “Consideration might well have been given to holding such a hearing early in the project, when adjustments could be made most cost-effectively.”  Nonetheless, the case was returned to the city, directing the fire chief to reconsider his decision using The Court’s ruling as guidance.  Therefore, the decision does not clearly favor Mr. MacLaurin.

Editorial Comments:
One of the determining standards coming out of the SJC ruling seems to hinge around the cost of installation corollary.  Attorney Bauer of GBREB writes:  “The economic test of the corollary, whether the cost of installation of automatic sprinklers ordinarily will approximate the cost of installing sprinklers in a comparable newly constructed building, provides a workable standard for analyzing property renovations to determine whether or not sprinkler retrofits will be required.”  But how this standard might be applied to a project is not clear.

Atty. Bauer also points out that the SJC ruling rejects the interpretation of “major alteration” as used in other legal contexts.  That term also needs a better definition.  For example, the blogger observes that The Court determines “major alteration” to be a lesser standard than “substantial rehabilitation”, and does not necessarily trigger the requirement for sprinklers.  But questions arise when “major alteration” is taken up with “good as new.”  Can a fire chief or building inspector, for instance, determine a major alteration to be “good as new” just because floors have been sanded and sealed, walls painted, bathrooms updated, etc., and therefore declare that sprinklers be installed?

This Editor and The Blogger are not alone in the ambiguity of how the ruling applies to the practical aspects of investing in rental housing.  To illustrate, proponents for the fire chief and Mr. MacLaurin are both claiming victory.
From the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts:  “We feel the decision is a win, and that the court has robustly reaffirmed the public safety purposes of the sprinkler laws and has struck a thoughtful balance.”
From the Greater Holyoke Rental Housing Association: “This decision finally gives clarity about when sprinklers are needed, and when they are not.  This clearly lessens the risk that building rehabilitation work will unexpectedly trigger a requirement to install sprinklers at an unaffordable cost.”

Please keep in mind that the SJC decision only applies to residential housing containing four or more units.  It does not apply to renovations of the standard three-decker where only one, two, or three apartments are involved.

I called the Worcester Fire Department searching for specifics on the requirement for water sprinklers when buildings of less than four units are renovated.  The person I spoke with could only say (1) it depends on the scope and price of the project, and (2) it hinges on individual rulings from the building inspector and fire chief of the municipality.  He was not being intentionally vague; the regulations for renovations and sprinkler requirements are vague.

Whether for renovations of four our more units, or for renovations of less than four units, research indicates that landlords should approach such projects cautiously.  As attorney Bauer points out, local officials seem to favor installation of sprinklers wherever possible.  There might need to be more cases heard in the courts to get the MacLaurin decision clearly and fairly defined.

10 Responses to Automatic Fire Suppression Sprinkler Systems & Renovations: Proceed With Caution

  1. Louis says:

    In schools with fire alarms, the pull switches have a small glass tube across the switch that will break when it is pulled. Is that just UV dye so that they can spot the kid who set off a false alarm, or does it serve another purpose? If it does do something else, why are half of them missing in schools I went to?

  2. STEVE A says:

    Mass requires new 3 family+ homes to be sprinkled, and substantially renovated 3 family homes to be sprinkled. You can get around the sprinkler requirement in an existing 3 family however by renovating one floor at a time.

    Massachusetts requires sprinklers in a 2 to 3 family+ change of use, also changing a 2 unit commercial plus 2 unit residential to a 4 unit residential, or adding an attic or basement apartment to a 2 unit house.

    There is a way around the sprinkler requirement however. Mass allows the use of Performance Compliance (Chapter 13 of the IEBC International Existing Building Code) when changing usage or adding apartments. PC avoids the sprinkler requirement as long as the building meets, or can meet, a fire safety score sheet located in Cha 13.

    Typically Performance Compliance requirements can be met by a single common fire proofed stairway (5/8 sheet over stairway walls and ceiling, replacement of entry doors in this one staircase with 90 minute fire doors ($420 each at HD), potentially saving $10k plus for a sprinkler.

    An illegal apartment which might trigger sprinklers in an attempt to legalize can also utilize this method.

    Few architects know this method. Zoning approval for additional apartments may have to be requested. I have done 6 of these projects in Greenfield, Northampton and Shelburne Falls. Shoot me an email for further info if you’d like or simply read chapter 13, Performance Compliance of the IEBC

  3. Grace G says:

    Hi Steve A,
    Would like to speak with you more on sprinkler systems in a 4 unit multifamily in Spfld, Ma

  4. Lana says:

    Facing a situation in Spencer where buying 3 family from ailing elderly parents that town has as 2 family. Desperately need your guidance and assistance regarding sprinkler system and codes. Please and thank you!

  5. Janet E Fusco says:

    Similar to Lana – I inherited a multi-family house from my dad. The third floor is finished (including bathroom and small kitchen) but city has this as a two-family, not three. There is a fire escape recently installed according to current code. Not sure what to do here since we don’t want problems with the city. Nor do we want to install sprinklers.

  6. Shirley W says:

    Hi Steve, I have a building in Turners Falls,currently zoned commercial that I want to develop into a work shop on the first floor and (2) 1 bdrm apartments upstairs . Total sq ft 2,600. The building inspector wants me to install sprinklers! Would it be possible to have a consultation with you? Thank you

  7. steve says:

    BTW The 1990 mass law pertains to buildings over 7500 sq ft and undergoing major renovation.

  8. steve andrews says:

    I have now done Performance Compliance Report for projects in Worcester and Blackstone. Your architect can write this report (2015 IEBC, Chapter 14) or get in touch with me. This report costs under 3k.

    Works for renovations, adding an additional unit (if zoning approved), or legalizing an existing unregistered or illegal apartment.

    Makes the building MUCH safer by having a fireproofed exit path including self closing fire doors and updated smoke alarms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Property Rights Supporter




Eviction Movers Proxima