The State Building Code Council on Aug. 15, 2025, heard a petition from the Washington State Association of Fire Marshals asking the council to adopt an emergency statewide amendment to the fire code that would require a minimum clear width between buildings and adjacent property lines for newly constructed multi-dwelling units. The petition requested a 5-foot clear width where buildings lack exterior openings to a street or alley and a reduced 4-foot width where fire sprinklers are provided.

Washington State Association of Fire Marshals past president Dave (presented materials) told the council that the change is prompted by recent higher-density residential development — smaller lots and multiple dwelling units on single-family parcels — that has resulted in side-yard clearances the marshals say are too narrow for safe access, patient removal on gurneys and ladder placement for second-floor rescues. “The emergency rule provides for a minimum clear width of 5 feet between the building and property line when the building does not have fire sprinklers,” Dave said during his presentation. He added that the rule would apply only to new construction and not to existing conditions.

Nut graf: Fire-department representatives said 3-foot side-yard clearances permitted under recent residential-code practice are inadequate for ladder angles and for moving patients on stretchers; industry groups and some council members urged more precise and narrower application of any prescriptive requirement and called for additional drafting and time for training and plan changes.

During public comment, Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington thanked the marshals for raising safety concerns but said the proposal’s draft language was broader than the marshals’ stated intent. “We understand what they're trying to do. But… the code language currently proposed does not match that intent,” Patrick said, urging the council to send the petition back to the technical committee to refine language and suggesting a delayed effective date for any adopted change.

After the presentations and public comment, Council member Tom Handy moved to find that an emergency basis exists and to act on that basis. Dan Young seconded the motion. A roll-call vote was taken on the question whether the petition established the emergency basis required by statute; the recorded vote was 8 in favor and 1 opposed (Tom Young opposed). Because the council’s rules and RCW require a two-thirds vote of voting members to establish an emergency finding and the council had 14 appointed voting members on the roster, the 8–1 tally fell short of the two-thirds threshold (10 votes required under the council’s interpretation), so the council did not adopt the emergency finding.

Council members and several public commenters then discussed intermediate options. Industry representatives said a narrower requirement limited to primary entrances facing non-street sides — instead of applying to all exterior openings — would better align with the marshals’ stated intent and reduce the risk of nullifying recent legislative actions intended to allow higher density on small lots. Fire-code consultants and some local fire officials argued that without a statewide minimum, jurisdictions could adopt inconsistent local standards and that a baseline minimum would improve responder safety statewide.

Following further deliberation, the council voted by voice to refer the petition to the Building and Fire Rules Workgroup (BFRW) for drafting and technical refinement and to develop an implementation plan that could include phased effective dates. That referral motion passed by voice vote. The council directed staff to return refined language and options to the BFRW and then back to the full council or to a special meeting for subsequent action.

Ending: The emergency petition drew clear safety concerns from fire officials and distinct concerns from industry and local-government representatives about unintended impacts on lot-feasibility and housing affordability. The council refused to find an immediate emergency because it lacked the two-thirds vote needed to proceed on the emergency path, and it instead sent the issue to its technical committee for further drafting and stakeholder work.