32A-124 (10) 3af}- ► 9-L1
• t - e it e 1St
a` �' , I tS
Deval L.Patrick OATEAR G g /ae4 O�/O Vierlf Thomas G.Gatzunis,P.E.
Governor //��jj �/ }} vy�y��6Q6(LppL'Rl ��jj��'''' 1 O 10 Commissioner
Andrea J.Cabral ,9 (et'/27-ctwo u9 v reel,27 Si,
Alexander Macleod
Secretary
(et}
/p ypq/27 Cf/O
Chairman
/et}
Brian Gale
/ Vice Chairman
eljlOCO.''Mare Robert Anderson
O Administrator
Date: September 2, 2013
ii� 1-1. '
Name of Appellant: Jack& Priscilla Finn i 1
u L{ SEP ' 92013 j
Set-vice Address: Bruce Coldham
L__
Coldham&Hartman Electrlq Pwi„nmg De tiosn
49 South Pleasant Street Northampton. MA 01060
s
Amherst, MA. 01002 •
In reference to: 57 King Street
Northampton, MA. 01060
Docket Number: 13-1274
Property Address: 57 King Street
Northampton, MA. 01060
Date of Hearing: 08-01-13
Enclosed please find a copy of the decision on the matter aforementioned.
Sincerely:
BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
6/P:,u 7cc
Patricia Barry,Clerk
cc: Building Code Appeals Board,Building Official
1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
DOCKET NO. 13-1274
)
Jack and Priscilla Finn, )
Appellants )
)
v. )
)
City of Northampton, )
Appellee )
BOARD'S DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This matter came before the State Building Code Appeals Board ("Board") on
Appellant's appeal application filed pursuant to G.L. c.143, §100 and 780 CMR 113.1
("Application"). Appellant sought relief from 780 CMR, with respect to the installation of an
NFPA 13 automatic fire sprinkler system in the residential portion of a mixed-use building
located at 57 King Street, Northampton, MA ("Appeal").
Procedural History
On or about July 15, 2013, the Building Commissioner for the City of Northampton
issued the following decision:
[The State Building Code] in sections 302.1 (prescriptive compliance
method) and 1001.1 (work area method for additions) require that work on the
addition comply with the code requirement for new construction. Chapter 9, table
902.3 note 9(a) requires that a sprinkler system in a mixed use building be
installed in accordance with NFPA 13. This would result in a NFPA 13 system
installed in only the newly constructed area of the residential unit.
As we previously discussed, I am willing to grant a code modification in
accordance with chapter 1, section 104.10 to allow an NFPA 13R system required
only in the area of new construction. I believe that an NFPA 13 R system
throughout the residential portion of the building will provide a higher level of
safety without the prohibitive expense of an NFPA 13 system only in the new
portion of the unit.
As a result, Appellant submitted the Appeal.
The Board convened a public hearing on August 1, 2013, in accordance with G. L. c.
30A, §§10 & 11; G. L. c. 143, §100; 801 CMR 1.02. All interested parties were provided an
opportunity to testify under oath and present evidence to the Board. (In attendance: Jack Finn;
Bruce Coldham; Louis Hasbrouck; Harold R. Cutler("Cutler"); (for the Board: Alexander
MacLeod; H. Jacob Nunnemacher; Harry F. Smith; Board Clerk: Patricia Barry). The Board
also considered the following documentation: (1) State Building Code Appeals Board Appeal
Application, received July 22,2013; (2) four(4)pages of correspondence about the Building
Code issues; (3)photograph of the building located at 57 King Street,Northampton,MA.
Findings and Discussion
Appellants' representatives reiterated the facts and discussions set forth in Exhibit 2. In
essence, Appellant would like to be allowed to install an NFPA 13D system in the residential
portions of an existing building and new additions to the residential portions. Presently,the
building has no type of automatic fire sprinkler system,and the building has approximately 8000
square feet of commercial space and 1800 square feet of residential space.
The City's Fire Department opposed the installation of an NFPA 13D system as
proposed. The City's Fire Department and the Building Commissioner believed that the Board
should allow a modification to allow theinstallation of an NFPA 13R system throughout the
residential portion of the building as an alternative to the requirement of an NFPA 13 system in
only the area of new construction. (The Building Commissioner also reiterated the facts and
discussions set forth in Exhibit 2.)
An NFPA 13R system would require the installation of a new water line from the Town
to supply the building. The existing water line would not provide sufficient water for a 13R
system. The installation of water tanks might provide an alternative to a new water line, but a
water tank installation also would create additional costs for the project. (See Exhibit 3;
photograph indicates that new water line would have to run from the street, through a parking lot,
and to the rear of existing buildings in the block.)
The existing building has a hard-wired,fire alarm system with a main panel on the first
level and a panel on the second (residential) level. The system is not connected to be monitored
by the Fire Department but it is capable of becoming a monitored system. Appellants noted that,
because their family resides on site and they were worried about having the Fire Department
automatically react to false alarms, they did not activate monitoring.
Conclusion
The Board considered a motion to allow variances from 780 CMR 302.1; 1001.1;
Chapter 9, Table 902.3, Note 9, to allow the installation of an NFPA 13D automatic fire sprinkler
system in the entire residential portion of the building,including the new construction, on
conditions that an enhanced fire alarm system is installed which is acceptable to the Building
Commissioner("Motion"). The Motion was approved by two-to-one vote (Nunnemacher
opposed).
2
1
l/qq� iN
(I LCIE 11/11.0/A1011 NALIC
H. Jacob Nunnemacher limy F. Smith Chair Alexander MacLeod
Any person aggrieved by a decision(Mike State Building G,de Appeals Board may appeal to
Superior Courtin accordance with U.L. c.30A, §14 within 30 days of receipt of this decision.
DATED: September 2, 2013
3