Automatic Sprinkler Appeals Board Decisions (ASAB)

The Board upheld the fire department Order and determined that multiple commercial properties were considered one building for the purposes of triggering the requirements of M.G.L. c. 148, s. 26G.

The Board upheld the fire department Order based upon the size of the commercial building (9,008 s.f.) and the major alterations occurring within the structure.

The Board reversed the fire department Order based upon the lack of sufficient water and water pressure without significant municipal infrastructure enhancements.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in a 20,000 s.f. building undergoing renovations. Board determined that the building owner did not have access to a source of water sufficient to operate an adequate system of sprinklers.

Board upheld fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in a 32,000 s.f. building, which was unsprinklered. Appellant was seeking to build a new 4,800 s.f. building on site.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers due to building being less than 7,500 s.f. in size, therefore 26G is inapplicable. Here, we are saying 26G doesn’t apply because of the size of the building but then that an exemption applies when 26G applies.

Board upheld fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in 9,504 s.f. building, with 1,100 s.f of additional mezzanine space, which was being converted from storage to usable office space and adding to overall square footage of the building.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in a car dealership with proposed renovations to increase building to 11, 238 s.f. Board determined that the owner did not have legal access to a source of water sufficient to operate an adequate system of sprinklers.

Board affirmed fire department’s Order requiring sprinklers in an existing 8,014 s.f. comm., with a planned renovation which would add approximately 600 s.f. to an existing mezzanine level.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in proposed 10,640 s.f. building. Board determined that the building owner did not have access to a source of water sufficient to operate an adequate system of sprinklers.

Fire Dept. ordered sprinklers installed in a recently purchased building undergoing renovation. Fire Dept. interpreted a “change in use,” pursuant to the building code, required compliance with s. 26G. Board reversed Order and determined “change of use” alone, doesn't trigger sprinkler requirements under s. 26G.

Fire Dept. ordered sprinklers installed after determining that 2 addresses were one building/structure and in the aggregate, were over 7,500 s.f. and had undergone major alterations. Board reversed Order and determined s. 26G not applicable, as buildings were separate, didn’t total more than 7,500 s.f. in the aggreg.

The Board modified the Order of the Oak Bluffs Fire Department to require sprinklers in a historic structure, rather requiring sprinklers throughout the proposed new addition and to require additional safety protections.

Appellant argued insufficient water pressure to supply adequate system of automatic sprinkler Board upholds the fire department order requiring sprinklers finding appellant has legal access to water sufficient for sprinklers.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in a proposed “salt shed”. Board determined that based upon the unique characteristics of this structure, installation of sprinkler system would not be practical.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in proposed 11, 924 s.f. building. Board determined that the building owner did not have access to a source of water sufficient to operate an adequate system of sprinklers.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring sprinklers in building used for commercial honey production. Board determined that intended use of building, the keeping/raising of bees and preparations of honey for market, exempted the subject building from application of s. 26G.

Board reversed the fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in building since it was routinely used for organized private dining events that feature a meal as the main attraction.

Board affirmed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in building that is routinely operated as a bar with an occupancy of 265 persons, triggering the provisions of 26G ½.

Board affirmed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in building that is routinely operated as a bar with an occupancy of 166 persons, triggering the provisions of 26G ½.

Board reversed the fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in building since it was routinely used for organized private dining events that feature a meal as the main attraction.

Board reversed the fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in building since it was routinely used for organized private dining events that feature a meal as the main attraction.

Board reversed the fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in building since it was routinely used for organized private dining events that feature a meal as the main attraction.