Public Meeting Notice  Board of Building Standards and Regulations Meeting - 7.14.26

Microsoft Teams meeting link and dial-in number

Microsoft Teams Meeting Link 

Meeting ID: 256 128 585 901 05 

Passcode: Xi9ec7jj 

Dial in by phone 

+1 857-327-9245,,549419396# United States, Boston 

Find a local number 

Phone conference ID: 549 419 396#

In accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 30A § 20, notice is hereby given that the Board of Building Regulations and Standards will be convening a regular monthly meeting. 

If you need reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting, please reach out to Cheryl Yebba at 617- 701-8711. The Agency will make best efforts to accommodate requests received in a timely manner.

In accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 30A § 20, the Board of Building Regulations and Standards convened a regular monthly meeting on: 

Microsoft Teams Meeting July 14^th, 2026 

The topics shown below were discussed at the aforementioned meeting: 10:04 AM Chair Reade Milne called the open meeting to order. 

Informational note: All votes were taken by roll call. Where each member voted in favor, the vote will be reported as unanimous.

Board Members Present

• Reade Milne, Chair
• Sy Nguyen, Vice Chair (joined at 10:26)
• Jason Ferschke
• Mark Hansen
• Tarica Leskiw (joined at 10:34)
• Luke McKneally
• Vineet Nair
• Atiya Rahim
• David Riquinha
• Jon Davine or Designee – Jake Nunnemacher
• Elizabeth Mahony or Designee – Shilpa Surana
• Sarah Wilkinson or Designee – Ross Seavey

Board Members Absent

• Darien Crimmin
• Lisa Davey
• David Johnson

DOL Staff Present

• Tammy Gropman, Executive Director
• Charles Kilb, Senior Board Counsel
• Andrew Chase, Associate Executive Director

Acknowledged Public Attendees

• Andy Bobola
• Mia Mansfield
• Shannon Hulst

1. Reviewed and Voted Meeting Minutes
   1. BBRS Minutes from June 9^th, 2026 – Jason Ferschke motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Luke McKneally. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, Shilpa Surana abstained. Motion passed with majority.
   2. BOCC Minutes from May 13^th, 2026 – Jason Ferschke motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Mark Hansen. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, Shilpa Surana abstained. Motion passed with majority. 
   3. Climate Resiliency Minutes from April 10^th, April 24^th, May 8^th, and May 22^nd, 2026 – Jake Nunnemacher motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Jason Ferschke A roll call vote was held, none opposed, Shilpa Surana abstained. Motion passed with majority.
   4. Energy Advisory minutes from May 4^th, 2026 – Luke McKneally motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Mark Hansen. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, Shilpa Surana abstained. Motion passed with majority.
   5. Fire Protection/Fire Prevention Minutes from April 29^th and May 27^th, 2026 – Jake Nunnemacher motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Luke McKneally. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, Shilpa Surana abstained. Motion passed with majority.
   6. Residential Code Minutes from April 23^rd, May 7^th, May 21^st, and June 4^th, 2026 – Jake Nunnemacher motioned to approve meeting minutes, seconded by Mark Hansen. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, Shilpa Surana abstained. Motion passed with majority.
2. Reviewed and Discussed Board Counsel Report
   1. Board Counsel Charles Kilb noted FPFP front-end amendments on agenda would reflect on-going efforts to standardize specialized code references which staff are attempting to apply with all the subcommittees.
3. Reviewed and Discussed Report from Subcommittees
   1. BOCC - Andy Bobola noted the BOCC did not meet in June
   2. FP/FP – Jake Nunnemacher noted that FPFP had completed its review of Chapters 4 and 33 and was continuing work on Chapter 9. 
   3. Residential – No update was provided. 
   4. Energy Advisory – Shilpa Surana noted that Energy Advisory was continuing work on Chapter 4.
   5. Climate Resiliency – Mia Mansfield reported that Climate Resiliency met on June 12^th, June 22^nd, and July 10^th, 2026, had completed its review of assigned chapters, and had approved four code change proposals. 
4. Reviewed and Discussed Executive Director Report
   1. Executive Director Tammy Gropman provided Construction Supervisor Licensing totals for the month of June, with 221 licenses issued and 1,742 renewed. 
5. Reviewed, Discussed, and Voted Requests for Interpretation
   1. RFI 2026-07 submitted by N. Cosper
      2. Members discussed whether an addition described as a sunroom could demonstrate energy-code compliance through REScheck or through the prescriptive requirements applicable to sunrooms. Members noted that the appropriate compliance pathway would depend on the submitted plans and whether the work constituted a substantial improvement but generally considered the code provisions for sunrooms and additions sufficiently specific for review by the local code official. Members raised concern that the request sought project-specific compliance guidance rather than an interpretation of unclear code language. Ross Seavey motioned for the Board to take no action on RFI 2026-07, seconded by David Riquinha.  Response back to the applicant will direct him to work with the local code official to determine the appropriate code-compliance pathway. A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously.
   2. RFI 2026-10 submitted by M. Rocino
      2. Members discussed 780 CMR R313.2.1 and Appendix AJ112.4.2 regarding fire sprinkler requirements for additions to existing one- and two-family dwellings. Members discussed the exception in R313.2.1 for additions or alterations to existing dwellings having an aggregate area greater than 14,400 square feet and whether “aggregate area” includes the area of the proposed addition. Members also considered AJ112.4.2, which requires sprinklers throughout an addition when the addition creates a condition that requires a sprinkler system under R313. 
      3. Several members raised concern that the provisions could produce different outcomes depending on whether an existing dwelling was already above or below the 14,400-square-foot threshold. One interpretation was that an addition causing a dwelling to exceed 14,400 square feet would require sprinklers within the addition under AJ112.4.2, while the exception in R313.2.1 would exempt an addition to a dwelling already exceeding the threshold. Other members concluded that AJ112.4.2 refers the user back to R313.2.1, including its exception, and that the additional language concerning aggregate area indicates that the calculation includes both the existing dwelling and the addition. Under that reading, an addition does not trigger a new sprinkler system when the existing dwelling is not already sprinklered; however, an existing sprinkler system would be required to extend into the addition.
      4. Members acknowledged concerns regarding fire and responder safety in very large unsprinklered dwellings and discussed whether the exception would be more appropriately located in Appendix AJ. Members noted that revising the location or substance of the exception would require a future code change proposal rather than an interpretation of the current code. 
      5. Ross Seavey motioned to issue interpretation that R313.2.1, including its exception, and AJ112.4.2 do not require a sprinkler system in an addition to an existing structure that did not previously have a sprinkler system in the existing structure, seconded by Mark Hansen.  No further discussion.  The motion passed with seven votes in favor, one opposed (Jake Nunnemacher), and four abstentions (Jason Ferschke, David Riquinha, Tarica Leskiw, Sy Nguyen).
   3. RFI 2026-11 submitted by W. Mott
      1. Members discussed the relationship between 780 CMR 101.4.7 and accessibility provisions elsewhere in the code, including Sections 1009 and 3009. Members noted that Section 101.4.7 generally directs users to the separately promulgated accessibility regulations for architectural-access requirements but does not eliminate specific accessibility-related provisions that remain in the Massachusetts amendments. Members concluded that Sections 1009 and 3009 continue to apply where their requirements are not otherwise addressed by the separate accessibility regulations. Members distinguished those provisions from general references to accessibility standards that are expressly replaced through the Massachusetts amendments.
      2. The requester indicated that no additional response was needed following the discussion. Members suggested that any desired clarification to the wording of 101.4.7 be submitted as a code change proposal for a future edition. 
      3. Ross Seavey motioned to take no action on RFI 2026-11, seconded by Mark Hansen.  No further discussion.  The motion passed unanimously.
   4. RFI 2026-21 submitted by D. Giuliano
      1. Members discussed whether a required secondary means of egress from a dwelling may pass through a bedroom or another room containing an interior door that could be locked. Members reviewed 780 CMR R311.1, which requires each means of egress to provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal travel from all portions of the dwelling unit to the required egress doors, and R311.2, which requires egress doors to be readily openable from inside the dwelling without a key, special knowledge, or effort. Members also referenced R311.2.1 regarding interior doors serving habitable rooms.
      2. Members raised concern that R311.2 applies directly to the exterior egress door and does not expressly regulate every interior door located along the travel path. Members discussed whether a bedroom or bathroom door should be considered an obstruction because such doors commonly contain locks, as well as whether approval could be conditioned on the use of passage hardware, a notation on the certificate of occupancy, or signage stating that the door must remain unlocked. Members also considered comparable conditions involving egress through garages, small dwellings, accessory dwelling units, outdoor showers, and other layouts in which an alternative location may not be practical.
      3. Members concluded that the determination depends heavily on the specific plans and whether the proposed path is continuous and unobstructed. Members noted that the local building official may impose project-specific conditions and that an applicant may appeal an adverse determination through the applicable appeals process. 
      4. Sy Nguyen motioned to take no action as the determination would need to be made by the local building official based on the specific facts in front of them, seconded by Mark Hansen,  No further discussion. The motion passed with one vote opposed (Jake Nunnemacher).
6. Reviewed, Discussed, and Voted Code Change Proposal Forms
   1. Historic Buildings Floodplain Proposal submitted by S. Hulst
      1. Members reviewed a proposal to revise the floodplain exemption for qualifying historic structures. The proposal would replace the current broad exemption from floodplain-compliance requirements with a narrower exemption for identified character-defining historic features. Shannon Hulst noted qualifying historic structures may presently undertake a substantial improvement—generally work equaling or exceeding 50 percent of the structure’s market value—without completing otherwise required flood mitigation. Members discussed concerns that the full exemption has resulted in inconsistent local treatment, partial or absent mitigation, applicant confusion, and continued flood risk to historic resources.
      2. Members discussed how qualifying historic structures are identified, including properties individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, properties identified as contributing structures within a National Register district, and properties designated through a qualifying certified local government program. Shannon Hulst noted that character-defining features are specific to each structure and may include windows, window configurations, doors, dormers, exterior form, height, or foundation features. Information concerning individual properties and contributing status may be located through the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System. Members noted that structures located within a historic district but not identified as contributing structures would not qualify for the exemption.
      3. Members raised concerns regarding the time and responsibility associated with identifying character-defining features, the documentation applicants should submit, and coordination with historic-preservation authorities. Members were informed that the necessary research can generally be completed through existing historic-resource records and should ordinarily be supplied by the applicant. Members also discussed whether the proposal had been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office and whether comparable provisions had been adopted elsewhere. The proposal was described as more consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program and approaches used in other states, while accounting for Massachusetts’ state-level variance process.
      4. Members discussed how the proposal would apply within the FEMA-designated 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain. Under the proposal, character-defining features would remain protected, while other portions of a substantially improved structure would be required to comply with applicable flood-resistant construction requirements. Where elevation or another compliance method would directly affect a protected historic feature, alternative mitigation measures could be considered. 
      5. Mark Hansen motioned to refer this to the Climate Resiliency Subcommittee for review and a report back to the Board, seconded by Jason Ferschke.  No further discussion. The motion passed unanimously.   
7. Reviewed, Discussed, and Voted Code Change Proposal Forms and Front-End Amendments
   1. 780 CMR - Chapter 1, Section 107.2 from FPFP subcommittee
      1. Members reviewed a proposed new Section 107.2.10 addressing safeguarding-construction documentation. Members were informed that the documentation is already required through the safeguarding-construction and fire-code provisions, but that adding it to the list of required construction documents would make the requirement more visible during the permit application process. Members discussed the need for early submission because fire access, water supply, and other protective measures may be required before site work begins or combustible construction materials arrive.
      2. Members raised concerns regarding the respective statutory authority of the building official and fire code official. Members noted that the building code and fire code both regulate aspects of fire safety, but each code assigns enforcement authority to a different official. Concerns included whether the proposed language could cause a building official to withhold a permit based on an approval required under 527 CMR 1.00, whether this would place the building official in the position of enforcing the fire code, and what appeal process would apply if an applicant disputed requirements imposed by the fire code official.
      3. Members considered language requiring the building official to receive a fire-prevention document already approved by the fire code official, rather than requiring the building official to evaluate or approve the document. Members discussed alternatives referencing NFPA 241 but concluded that directly incorporating NFPA 241 could imply that the building official was responsible for reviewing compliance with that standard. Members therefore favored a specific reference to the authority already established under 527 CMR 1.00 Chapter 16. The terminology was revised to match the term “fire prevention program” used in that chapter.
      4. Mark Hansen motioned to approve new Section 107.2.10, as amended, requiring the construction documents to include a fire prevention program (NFPA 241 Plan) approved by the fire official, seconded by Sy Nguyen. Further discussion was minimal.  A roll call vote was held, with six in favor, two abstentions (Sy Nguyen, Shilpa Surana), two oppositions (David Riquinha, Jake Nunnemacher).  The motion passed by majority vote. 
   2. IBC 2024 - Chapter 33 from FPFP subcommittee
      1. Members reviewed the FPFP Subcommittee’s proposed amendments to IBC 2024 Chapter 33, Safeguards During Construction. Members discussed the relationship among Chapter 33, the International Fire Code, 527 CMR 1.00 Chapter 16, NFPA 241, and the newly approved 780 CMR 107.2.10. Members noted that references to the International Fire Code must be applied in accordance with the Massachusetts provisions governing the relationship between 780 CMR and 527 CMR 1.00.
      2. For Section 3301.1, members reviewed language adding a reference to 527 CMR 1.00 for additional fire-prevention requirements during construction and for protection of adjacent public and private property. Members also reviewed a note directing that references to the International Fire Code be applied in accordance with 780 CMR 101.4.5 and 107.2.10.
      3. For new Section 3301.6, members reviewed construction-document requirements and agreed that the language should be aligned with 107.2.10 so that the building official receives the fire prevention program approved by the fire code official. Members similarly revised Section 3303.1, addressing demolition documents and schedules submitted pursuant to 780 CMR Chapter 1, to align the fire-prevention-program language with Section 107.2.10.
      4. Members reviewed Section 3311.3 concerning detailed requirements for temporary standpipes and discussed labeling temporary standpipes regardless of whether they are supplied with water. Members also reviewed Section 3313.1 concerning water supplies for fire protection. The proposed language requires a water supply approved by the fire code official in accordance with 527 CMR 1.00 Chapter 16, whether temporary or permanent, to be available when combustible building materials arrive at the site, when vertical combustible construction begins, and when a standpipe system is installed in accordance with Sections 3313.2 through 3315.5. Members reviewed removal of an exception and language providing that where the approved fire safety plan requires water supply or fire flow exceeding the minimum provisions of the building code, the approved plan controls.
      5. Members reviewed Section 3314.1 concerning fire watches during construction. Members raised concern that language stating a fire watch “shall be provided” under 527 CMR 1.00 could imply that the building official was responsible for enforcing fire-code requirements. The language was revised to a reference note directing users to 527 CMR 1.00 Chapter 16, leaving administration and enforcement of fire watches with the fire code official.
      6. Members raised a remaining concern regarding Section 3302.1 and whether the unamended IBC language could require a second or duplicative fire-protection plan to be developed for the building official, despite the Chapter 1 requirement for an approved fire prevention program. Members discussed returning the chapter to the FPFP Subcommittee but noted that the subcommittee had already reviewed the chapter extensively and had other assigned work pending. Members were advised that a future request for additional subcommittee review should identify a specific provision and concern, and that the chapter would also be subject to the public-hearing process.
      7. Luke McKneally motioned to approve Chapter 33 safeguards during construction as presented, seconded by Mark Hansen.  Further discussion was minimal.  A roll call vote was held, with  6 in favor, one abstention (Jason Ferschke), three oppositions (David Riquinha, Jake Nunnemacher, Sy Nguyen).  The motion passed by majority vote. 
8. Discuss Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated, 48 Hours in Advance of the Meeting
   1. It was noted that long-time member Jeff Clemons had retired. Members thanked him for his years of service to the Board and public safety. 
9. Adjournment of the open meeting – The next meeting is scheduled for September 8^th, 2006, at 10:00 AM. 
   1. Jake Nunnemacher motioned to adjourn the public meeting and to enter quasi judicial session, seconded by Luke McKneally.  A roll call vote was held, none opposed, none abstained. Motion passed unanimously. 
   2. The open meeting adjourned at 1:13 PM
10. Quasi-Judicial Session (Closed per M.G.L. c. 30A, §18)

The following actions were taken during this session regarding pending disciplinary matters: 

C23-00182 – Tabled till next meeting

C23-00130 – Settlement offer provided

Items Relied Upon During Open Meeting

• Agenda
• Meeting Minutes
• Code Change Proposals
• Front-End Amendments
• Requests for Interpretation

It is anticipated that the topics shown below will be discussed at the aforementioned meeting: 

1. Review/Vote Minutes of the following meetings: 
   1. BBRS minutes from June 9, 2026
   2. BOCC minutes from May 13, 2026
   3. Climate Resiliency minutes from April 10, 2026, April 24, 2026, May 8, 2026, and May 22, 2026
   4. Energy Advisory minutes from May 4, 2026
   5. Fire Prevention and Fire Protection minutes from April 29, 2026 and May 27, 2026
   6. Residential Code minutes from April 23, 2026, May 7, 2026, May 21, 2026, and June 4, 2026 
2. Review/Discuss Board Counsel Report
3. Review/Discuss Report from Subcommittees
   1. BOCC
   2. FP/FP
   3. Residential Code
   4. Energy Advisory
   5. Climate Resiliency
4. Review/Discuss Executive Director Report
   1. Construction Supervisor License
      1. Totals for the month of June 2026 including waivers and reinstatements
5. Review/Discuss/Vote Request for Interpretation
   1. RFI 2026-07 submitted by N. Cosper
   2. RFI 2026-10 submitted by M. Rocino
   3. RFI 2026-11 submitted by W. Mott
   4. RFI 2026-21 submitted by D. Giuliano
6. Review/Discuss/ Vote Code Change Proposal Forms
   1. Historic Buildings Floodplain Proposal submitted by S. Hulst 
7. Review/Discuss/ Vote Code Change Proposal Forms and Front-End Amendments
   1. 780 CMR - Chapter 1, Section 107.2 from FPFP subcommittee
   2. IBC 2024 - Chapter 33 from FPFP subcommittee
8. Discuss matters not reasonably anticipated by the chair, 48 hours in advance of the meeting
9. Closed session (M.G.L. c. 112, § 65C – Investigative conferences and settlement conferences)
   1. Discuss complaints prior to the issuance of an order to show cause
      1. C23-00182
   2. Discuss terms of a negotiated settlement of complaint case
      1. C23-00130

Adjournment – the next scheduled meeting is September 8, 2026