Standing Firm on Sprinkler Retrofit
Oak Brook found a way to meet its goal of a totally sprinklered commercial community.
It’s a common belief among both fire prevention bureaus and property owners that you can’t retroactively apply a fire prevention code or local amendments made when a municipality adopts model codes. To believe this indicates that a fire department is resigned to living with buildings that are unsafe by today’s standards, standards which dictate the installation of automatic sprinkler systems in many occupancies.
The Oak Brook (Ill.) Fire Department has taken exception to this belief. We’ve found that the legal basis for retroactive sprinkler code application is in place; it’s the political handling of the enforcement that’s a challenge.
Many years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in the little-known case of Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. SAXL (328 U.S. 80, 1946), which said a retroactive fire code application is legal if its intent is to correct an ongoing hazard that cannot be corrected in any other manner and if it doesn’t impose too great a burden on private rights.
In 1979, the village of Oak Brook adopted an amended model fire prevention code, and we’ve done what we consider to be a commendable job of enforcement. Two codes constitute the bulk of Oak Brook’s fire prevention code: the American Insurance Association’s Fire Prevention Code, 1976 edition, and the National Fire Protection Association’s Life Safety Code, 1976 edition. However, we believed that in certain types of occupancies, these codes didn’t meet our needs in the area of automatic sprinkler systems.
Because Oak Brook had been incorporated not quite 20 years in 1979, much of the commercial area had been built before there were fire codes. Thus the buildings fit in several categories: Some had fire detection systems, some were sprinklered, some had combinations of both, and some had no fire protection systems. After the fire department finished a lengthy analysis of this situation, the village board decided that, in the long term, Oak Brook should have a totally sprinklered commercial community. The benefits to the fire suppression forces alone were enough to sell this concept to the board: Today the fire department has 33 members; we projected it would be up to 40 by now without sprinklerization.
To make a totally sprinklered business community possible, the village board approved a lot of changes in the fire prevention code. One small amendment was to have a big impact, upon both the fire prevention bureau and the commercial community. That single code amendment states that, except where there were fire alarm systems approved by the appropriate codes in place at the time the ordinance was passed, “automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed and maintained in full operating condition in all parts” of all commercial buildings.
We looked to select sections of the Life Safety Code to deal with our high-rise situation, because all our high-rises were higher than 75 feet and thus fell within that code’s business occupancy classification, which meant they were required to be sprinklered. Backed by the application sections of both codes, we took the position that both the local ordinance and the Life Safety Code sections applied to both new and existing conditions and, as a result, were retroactive.
Given this tool to perform our duties, the fire prevention bureau set out to enforce the code. Our analysis noted 10 to 12 properties in total noncompliance (having no protection), and about 8 high-rise buildings in need of sprinklers.
We knew what properties would be affected and the extent of their noncompliance. With these facts in hand, we prioritized our enforcement schedule based on such items as occupancy, property occupant load, and type of construction. Included in the initial listing were three major, high-rise hotels, a large wood frame restaurant, two movie theaters with seating capacities exceeding 1,000 people each, and about six more buildings of varied classifications.
Strategically, we believed we should take on only what we could effectively handle. For this reason, we did not convene a meeting of all property owners affected to discuss compliance. At no time did we make the discussions with individual owners and managers public. When dealing with a retroactive code application such as ours, a major pitfall could be an alliance of property owners who set themselves against it. Although we were confident we ultimately would have won, a legal battle is costly for all involved; we’d rather see this money put toward sprinkler systems, and have said so openly.
Two of the many situations we faced will serve to illustrate our “divide and conquer” strategy. The first centered around four hotels built in the late 1960s, as our village was beginning to grow commercially. Three were highrises, up to 11 stories high, with scant fire protection built in. Typically, aside from sprinkler protection in basement and assembly areas, the only fire protection devices present were minimal corridor heat detection and standpipe systems. Guest rooms had no fire protection of any type. Obviously, these were high on our code enforcement priority list.
In our attempts to gain compliance, we met often with the managers, who at first were naturally not too receptive to our requests. But our tact was quite simple: The buildings were not in compliance with our fire prevention code; they must be sprinklered.
However, we remained keenly aware of the financial burden we were about to place on the hotels, and in all cases, we ultimately negotiated compliance agreements.
These typically laid out a time frame in which the owners would begin the necessary steps toward installation. (Initially, all the owners proposed full fire detection systems as “equivalencies” specified in the codes. The irony was that, for many years, we had recommended these systems but could not legally require them, and they weren’t installed.) Because of the hotels’ high occupancy rates, the sprinkler installations were going to be difficult. All preparations— such as drawings and flow tests— took place during the first year. Installations were typically carried out during off periods or in conjunction w’ith other work.
All four of our major hotels were unsprinklered when the new ordinance was passed but now have complete systems. This happened within a relatively short time after the initial meetings, and it happened without legal action on either side. Cooperation was the reason.
The second example of Oak Brook’s sprinkler enforcement is a 50-year-old building, so it provides an even better picture of a retroactive code application. This wood frame restaurant with a resident owner was built as a single-family residence long before the incorporation of the village. Over many years, it had evolved to its present layout. And for years, we had tried to persuade the owner to install a sprinkler system, but to no avail.
Because of the high occupant load and the type of construction, this property was at the top of our new priority list. At first, the owner ignored our compliance notices. One was finally delivered personally, with return receipt required. As permitted by our fire prevention code, the owner then made a formal appeal to the fire chief, proposing a full fire detection system in place of sprinklers. The appeal was denied.
The fear of adverse publicity and the possible embarrassment of a long legal fight with the fire department over an item that was obviously needed eventually changed the owner’s mind. After two years of discussions, we got an agreement to comply.
The type of construction and the building’s age presented numerous problems in the design and engineering of a sprinkler system. It was hard even to find a contractor willing to tackle the job. Cost was also a problem; the construction dictated a dry-pipe system to protect the many inaccessible areas. And because of the nature of the business, immediate compliance wasn’t possible. We agreed that the basement would be done immediately, along with the system’s water service. All work was to be completed within two years. All of our agreements also included a statement to the effect that all work must comply with NFPA 13, the standard on automatic sprinklers.
Again, our goal of compliance was met with no legal fees spent on either side. This occupancy reinforced our belief that any building can be retrofitted with an automatic sprinkler system.
In mid-1985, we again analyzed all commercial properties in the village. In the process, we noted that Oak Brook has commercial square footage of about 14,043,000. Of this massive area, 66 percent is sprinklered in total conformance with NFPA 13. An additional 24 percent is protected with approved forms of fire detection. And 10 percent either is exempt from our ordinance due to the type of structure or is still in a program of compliance. The exempt structures typically are properties that for various reasons are rarely sprinklered, such as open parking decks.
How many communities can boast of such thorough compliance? The key to our success is our willingness to negotiate a timely compliance schedule. (Not all the properties on our original priority list complied. Of the original 12, one building, a theater, closed its doors and ultimately was demolished. Although we were blamed because of costly code requirements, we believe that, truthfully, falling attendance had left this theater unable to meet its daily expenses.)
This type of code application is of benefit to all concerned, both owners and fire suppressionists. It will not come to pass, however, unless your department actually adopts and implements progressive fire codes with suitable amendments.
The municipality should comply, also. Ours boast that all municipal buildings are 100 percent sprinklered, including its two fire stations; several were done retroactively, at considerable expense. This is a must. You must not be vulnerable to a charge of discrimination because you failed to practice what you preach.
Retroactive sprinkler code application is not only possible, it should be the goal of any progressive fire prevention bureau. Your selling job begins with your own elected officials and ends only when the system is installed in the property.
