Automatic Sprinkler Appeals Board Decisions (ASAB)

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 modified fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers throughout the entirety of an athletic complex. Board determined that sprinklers were required throughout the facility, however, based upon the unique characteristics and highly corrosive environment of the pool area, the installation of a sprinkler

Board affirms Order of fire department requiring automatic sprinklers in indoor sports and fitness facility

Board modified the Order of fire department requiring automatic sprinklers in air supported structure. Parties agreed to and submitted suggested disposition of the matter to Board outlining fire safety/prevention conditions and restrictions regarding use of structure. Board accepted said suggested disposition.

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 affirmed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in existing 6, 144 s.f. commercial building with proposed 1,720 s.f. addition. Board determined that the combined square footage of the existing building and proposed addition (7,864 s.f.) exceeds 7,500 s.f which triggers the provisions of s. 26G.

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 affirmed fire dept.’s Order requiring sprinklers in 11,640 s.f. commercial building undergoing major alterations. Board determined scope of work and series of renovation projects conducted over short period may be combined to be considered “major” alterations both individually triggering sprinkler requirements.

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 affirmed fire department’s Order requiring sprinklers in 8, 170 s.f. commercial building undergoing series of major alterations. Board determined series of renovation projects conducted over reasonably short period may be combined to be considered “major” alterations triggering sprinkler requirements of s. 26G.

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, the installation of a sprinkler system would not be practical.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in proposed 11, 345 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 affirmed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in newly constructed 9,968 s.f. commercial building. Board determined that the square footage of the newly constructed building exceeded 7,500 s.f which triggers the provisions of s. 26G.

Board affirmed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in two commercial building. Both buildings individually and together exceed the 7.500 s.f. trigger of s. 26G and both underwent major modifications.

Board reversed fire department’s Order requiring sprinklers in proposed 2,780 s.f building adjacent to existing 9,000 s.f. building. Board determined although buildings were close, proposed to be physically separate. Board determined that planned structure did not constitute addition to existing building as used in s.

Board affirmed fire department’s Order requiring sprinklers in existing 8,712 s.f. commercial garage with recently constructed 1,250 s.f. addition. Board determined the combined square footage of existing building and newly constructed addition (9,962 s.f.) exceeds 7,500 s.f. which triggers provisions of s. 26G.

Board affirmed Order of fire department requiring automatic sprinklers in indoor sports and fitness facility.

Board affirmed fire department’s Order requiring automatic sprinklers in an existing 8,300 s.f. building undergoing major alterations which triggers the provisions 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.