Code board denies sprinkler exemption for three Capitol Hill quadplex renovation projects

Oklahoma City's Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals voted unanimously Wednesday to deny three related appeals from Trey Maston, who sought to renovate three Capitol Hill quadplexes without adding automatic fire suppression systems by relying on the performance compliance method in Chapter 13 of the 2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC).

The appeals concerned whether the city's local amendment to the IEBC (local supplement section 302.7) requires automatic sprinklers for the scope of work proposed at 3809 South Hudson Avenue, 400 Southwest Grand Boulevard and 404 Southwest Grand Boulevard, or whether Maston's projects could proceed under Chapter 13's scoring-based performance compliance method.

The dispute turned on a city amendment to section 1301.2 (as adopted into local code) that references compliance with "chapter 13 or the provisions of chapter 3 through 12." City staff and the fire marshal said that amendment was intended to keep Chapter 3's cross-cutting provisions (including the local sprinkler supplement, 302.7) applicable to all compliance methods; the applicant said the plain language of the amendment preserves Chapter 13 as an independent, lawful alternative and that his projects met Chapter 13 scoring thresholds.

"This decision is not just about my 3 quadplexes," said Trey Maston, the applicant. "Section 13.01.2 of the IEBC as amended and adopted by city council gives applicants two lawful compliance options. Follow chapter 13, the performance compliance method, or follow chapters 3 through 12." Maston told the board he met or exceeded life-safety thresholds required under Chapter 13 and that his scorecard had been validated by a licensed architect and a licensed fire-protection engineer.

City staff urged the board to deny the appeals. Scott Wise of the Development Center said city and fire officials determined the amended language creates no loophole and that local Supplement 302.7 remains valid in requiring suppression across compliance methods. "The determination of the city staff is that the amended language in section 1301.2 conflicts with both local and state code requirements because it is different from the state-adopted OUBCC requirement. And that section 302.7 is locally amended or still remains valid in requiring fire suppression systems across all compliance methods," Wise said.

Prince Morgan, the Oklahoma City fire marshal, warned that automatic suppression systems are the "true life safety element" for multifamily occupancies and recounted past incidents where smoke alarms alone did not prevent fatalities. "We've experienced several situations ... they had smoke alarms, but people still lost their lives," Morgan said. He and other city staff said the local sprinkler requirement has been in place for decades and that adopting Maston's interpretation would undercut the amendment's life-safety purpose.

Brock Rowe, director of development services and chief building official, told the board that chapter 3 in the IEBC "is kind of the governing part of the existing building code" and argued the council's amendment was intended to preserve Chapter 3's provisions (including sprinkler requirements) when the city adopted Chapter 13. Rowe said staff plans to propose clarifying revisions to the local code language to remove the ambiguity.

Board members moved to deny the applicant's appeal on the first case and, after the applicant stipulated the three cases were substantially the same, voted separately to deny the remaining two appeals. The motions to deny carried unanimously in each recorded vote.

The board's counsel reminded members that under city code (section 12-133) the board may modify or reverse a code official's decision only for limited grounds such as manifest injustice, exceptional undue hardship, or incorrect interpretation of the code's true intent; economic hardship alone is not a valid basis. Counsel and city staff also noted state law prevents municipalities from adopting provisions that are less restrictive than the state-adopted code.

After the votes, the board's chair announced that the applicant's request had been denied and the applicant asked that the board's written decision be prepared for potential appeal to district court.

Members of the public and the applicant's counsel exchanged technical arguments about scorecard points and whether the applicant's submission fully reflected credit or deductions on the Chapter 13 form; city staff said some point entries had been revised in the applicant's latest materials but maintained that the local sprinkler amendment still applied.

The board then adjourned the hearing.