25A-185 (151) CHARLES D. BAKER
GOVERNOR JOHN C.CHAPMAN
UNDERSECRETARY OF
Commonwealth of Massachusetts CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND
KARYN E. POLITO BUSINESS REGULATION
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Division of Professional Licensure
CHARLES BORSTEL
MIKE KENNEALY Office of Public Safety and Inspections COMMISSIONER,DIVISION OF
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND B Massachusetts • 02118 PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE
Boston ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1000 Washington Street • •
RECEIVE
Date: January 31,2019
FEB _ 8 2019
Name of Appellant: Coca-Cola North America LD
DEPNORTHAMPTON!rMAO 060 NS
Service Address: Christopher Harmon
Hixson Architect, Eng. &Int.
659 Van Meter Street
Cincinnati,OH. 45202
In reference to: 45 Industrial Drive
Northampton, MA. 01060
Docket Number: 18-0166
Property Address: 45 Industrial Drive
Northampton, MA. 01060
Date of Hearing: January 10, 2019
Enclosed please find a copy of the decision on the matter aforementioned.
Sincerely:
BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Patricia Barry,Clerk
cc: Building Code Appeals Board,Building Official
Za TELEPHONE: (617)727-3200 FAX: (617)727-5732 http://www.mass.gov/dps
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
DOCKET NO. APP-BCAB 18-0166
Coca Cola North America, )
Appellant )
V. )
City of Northampton, )
Appellee )
DECISION
Introduction
This appeal ("Appeal") is before the Massachusetts Building Code Appeals Board
("BCAB") as a result of an application filed on December 13, 2018 regarding the construction of
a liquids storage room in an existing factory/warehouse facility located at 45 Industrial Drive,
Northampton, MA. G. L. c. 143, § 100, 780 CMR 113.1.
On or about November 30, 2018 City of Northampton Building Commissioner Louis
Hasbrouck issued a letter re: Coca Cola North America, 45 Industrial Drive and a proposed fire
suppression system for a flammable storage room. The letter pointed out that, although
Hasbrouck and others generally agreed with the proposals, 780 CMR 901.2 required BCAB
review. (Exhibit 1A).1
Notices of hearing were issued and the hearing was held on January 10, 2019. All
interested parties were provided with an opportunity to testify and present evidence to the
Board. (For Appellant: Chris Harmon; Derek Wojcikowski); (For Appellee: Louis Hasbrouck;
Andrew Pelis (For the Board: Richard P. Crowley; H. Jacob Nunnemacher; Harold P. Learning).
Patricia Barry,the Board's clerk was also present.
1"Whoever is aggrieved by an interpretation, order, requirement,direction or failure to act by any state or local
agency or any person or state or local agency charged with the administration or enforcement of the state building
code or any of its rules and regulations,except any specialized codes as described in section ninety-six, may within
forty-five days after the service of notice thereof appeal from such interpretation, order, requirement,direction, or
failure to act to the appeals board.Appeals hereunder shall be on forms provided by the appeals board and shall
be accompanied by such fee as said appeals board may determine." G. L. c. 143,§100.
1
Exhibits
The following documents were entered in evidence:
1. BCAB18-0166 Appeal Application;
1-A. November 30, 2018 letter to Derek Wojcikowski from Louis Hasbrouck;
1-B. November 30, 2018 letter to the BCAB from Louis Hasbrouck;
1-C. "Code Summary for Proposed Flammable Storage/Liquid Storage Room, Coca-Cola
North America, 45 Industrial Drive, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060," by Hixson Architect,
Engineers, and Interiors (33 pages);
2. October 23, 2018 letter to the Northampton Building Department from Harold R. Cutler,
P.E. re: Protection of Flammable and Combustible Liquids Warehouse, Coca Cola Plant,
Northampton (7 pages).
Discussion and Findings
The issues arose because some of the liquids Coca Cola uses in creating soft drinks
include ingredients, such as "orange essence," which are classified as combustible for purposes
of 780 CMR. These types of ingredients must be stored in certain types of areas. Coca Cola
would like to create a space, as depicted in Exhibit 1-C, p. 32 (sheet AE1.1g), for storage of
those types of materials. As detailed in Exhibit 1-C, Coca Cola would like to install a clean
agent/dry fire suppression system. (See also.Exhibit 2).
Another issue involves ventilation. See Exhibits 1-C and 2. The liquids will be stored in
closed containers, at 40 degree F. The reason for the temperature limit is to keep liquids from
off-gassing. Building Commissioner Hasbrouck clarified and emphasized that the facility also
will have an NFPA 13 water-supplied system as a back-up to the proposed primary dry system.
Both the City's Department of Building Inspections and Fire Department support allowing the
requested relief.
"The [BCAB] may grant a variance from any provision of[780 CMR] in any particular
case, may determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction, and
may provide reasonable interpretations of the provisions of[780 CMR]; provided, however,
that [BCAB] decisions shall not conflict with the general objectives set forth in" G. L. c. 143,
2
§ 95.2 In exercising its powers under this section, the [BCAB] may impose limitations both as to
time and use, and a continuation of any use permitted may be conditioned upon compliance
with regulations made and amended from time to time thereafter." G. L. c. 143, § 100.
The BCAB generally agreed with proposals and conclusions set forth in the Exhibits.
However,the BCAB concluded that some type of notification about spill(s) in the containment
area, which would be acceptable to the City's building and fire officials, needs to be included.
The notification needs to include some type of liquid detection system because the BCAB found
risks associated with liquid spills would be greater (and would need to be detected earlier)than
outgassing. The BCAB also found that a final review of Tier 2 shop drawings is required.
In sum, the BCAB found that the proposal is an alternative fire protection design that
must meet the requirements of 780 CMR 901.2, Exception 2, including, among others,
Appellant's obtaining third-party engineering review which will be reviewed by the City and its
engineer. Although the BCAB could continue the hearing to review the third-party documents
when those become available,the BCAB found that, in these circumstances, where the City has
engaged its own expert (see Exhibit 2) and the City has demonstrated that it is capable of
verifying the applicable technical requirements, continuing the Appeal and requiring Appellant
to return to the BCAB for another hearing session is not necessary.
Thus, the BCAB found that the proposals, with the conditions set forth below, would not
compromise life safety in ways that would conflict with the general objectives of G. L. c. 143,
§ 95.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the evidence before the BCAB with respect to only this property, the BCAB
GRANTED a variance in accordance with 780 CMR 901.2, Exception 2, for an alternative fire
2 "The powers and duties of the board set forth in section ninety-four[the BBRS] shall be exercised to effect the
following general objectives:
(a) Uniform standards and requirements for construction and construction materials,compatible with accepted
standards of engineering and fire prevention practices,energy conservation and public safety.
In the formulation of such standards and requirements,performance for the use intended shall be the test of
acceptability,in accordance with accredited testing standards.
(b)Adoption of modern technical methods,devices and improvements which may reduce the cost of construction
and maintenance over the life of the building without affecting the health,safety and security of the occupants or
users of buildings.
(c) Elimination of restrictive,obsolete,conflicting and unnecessary building regulations and requirements which
may increase the cost of construction and maintenance over the life of the building or retard unnecessarily the use
of new materials,or which may provide unwarranted preferential treatment of types of classes of materials,
products or methods of construction without affecting the health,safety,and security of the occupants or users of
buildings." G. L. c. 143, §95.
3
protection design, as in evidence, on conditions that: (1) Appellant engages an independent
Massachusetts registered design professional to review the proposal and submit the design
professional's review to the City for review by building official, fire officials, and the City's
design professional. If the City approves Appellant's registered design professional's review,
then the work may proceed; (2) a liquid detection system is installed, as represented by the
evidence and which is acceptable to the City; and (3) Appellant provides Tier 2 shop drawings to
the City for its review and approval of the final design.
SO ORDERED,
BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
By:
f'i
Ld Gw �
H. Jacob Nurnnemacher Richard P. Crowley, C air Harold P. Learning
DATED: January 31, 2019
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board may appeal to
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in accordance with M.G.L. c. 30A, § 14
within 30 days of receipt of this decision.
4