BOAF Interpretations

Interpretations Request Input

Original Request

Request ID: 8553
Requested By: Ann Kinsey
Requester E-Mail: ann.kinsey@leesburgflorida.gov
Code Version: 2021
Code: BUILDING
Code Description:
Chapter:
Section: 310.5.1
Topic: 13D Residential Sprinkler Systems per FBC 310.5.1 in Community Residential Homes per FS 419
Question: Does Florida Statute Chapter 419 EXEMPT a residential care facility for 5 or fewer residents receiving care from having to install a residential sprinkler system (13D) per the Florida Building Code 310.5.1?
Comment: Local commercial business owners that accept government funding to house residents who are physically, emotionally, or mentally challenged under the specifications of Florida Statute 419 believe they should be exempt from Florida Building Code 310.5.1 when there are 5 or fewer residents in the house. They also state that the statute says that only under local laws and ordinances would property used in that manner be deemed residential, not commercial. And they state that the Florida Building Code has to be adopted locally, which makes it a local law. The Building Official feels the Florida Building Code is very clear about letting these businesses exist according to the residential regulations, provided they comply with FBC 310.5.1 (install a 13D sprinkler system per FBC 903.3.1.3). This is what makes FS 419 possible, as it provides a few more minutes to allow the staff to get the residents out of the building in case of a fire. Furthermore, F.S. Chapter 419 speaks only of zoning regulations. It does not mention the building regulations. Regarding the argument that building regulations are “local laws and ordinances”, the Florida Building Code is a State rule, as such the Building Code is not adopted locally, and remains a statewide building code.
Attachment 1: Download
Attachment 2: Download

Existing Interpretations and/or Declaratory Statements Related to this request

Input Received:

This would be a change of the CO to an R-3 occupancy under 310.5.1 and would required fire sprinkler protection in accordance with 903.3.1.3. The provisions of FS 419 do not exempt the use from the provisions of the Florida Building Code.

Anthony Apfelbeck on 08/16/2021 at 1:22 PM

I agree with Anthony. The B.O. is correct in requiring a sprinkler system.

Timothy Moore on 08/16/2021 at 2:14 PM

I agree with Tony.

Joseph Belcher on 08/16/2021 at 7:26 PM

I agree and this is also backed up by AGO 2008-40

Michael Grimm on 08/17/2021 at 3:17 AM

Answer:

This would be a change of use and requires a new Certificate of Occupancy (CO) to an R-3 occupancy under 310.5.1 and would require fire sprinkler protection in accordance with 903.3.1.3. The provisions of FS 419 do not exempt the use from the provisions of the Florida Building Code.

On 08/18/2021 at 11:28 AM

Commentary:

None.

Comments on Draft:

Good with this.

Anthony Apfelbeck on 08/18/2021 at 11:41 AM

Agreed

Timothy Moore on 08/18/2021 at 11:48 AM

agree

Michael Grimm on 08/18/2021 at 12:52 PM

Agreed.

Joseph Belcher on 08/18/2021 at 2:54 PM

Agreed.

Joseph Belcher on 08/18/2021 at 2:55 PM

I agree. I also agree with the BO determination, Pasted below.
Florida Building Code is very clear about letting these businesses exist according to the residential regulations, provided they comply with FBC 310.5.1 (install a 13D sprinkler system per FBC 903.3.1.3). This is what makes FS 419 possible, as it provides a few more minutes to allow the staff to get the residents out of the building in case of a fire. Furthermore, F.S. Chapter 419 speaks only of zoning regulations. It does not mention the building regulations. Regarding the argument that building regulations are “local laws and ordinances”, the Florida Building Code is a State rule, as such the Building Code is not adopted locally, and remains a statewide building code.

Edward Roseberry on 08/18/2021 at 3:17 PM

Agree as well.

Samuel Greenberg on 08/18/2021 at 4:13 PM

Agree

Linda Patrick on 08/18/2021 at 8:25 PM

Agree

John Farinelli on 08/19/2021 at 1:10 PM

Concur with response

Larry Schneider on 08/19/2021 at 2:11 PM

Publish Draft Interpretation

Enter New Interpretation Request