Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues three Capitol Hill appeals after debate over IEBC chapter 13 vs. local sprinkler requirement
Summary
A developer appealed local staff enforcement requiring fire sprinklers for remodels; the board continued three related appeals to give city staff time to resolve an apparent conflict between the city's IEBC amendment and chapter 13 applicability language.
The Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals on July 9, 2025 continued three related appeals by developer Trey Mastin that challenged the city’s interpretation of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and a local amendment requiring fire suppression for certain residential remodels.
Mastin told the board he is rehabilitating three multifamily properties in Ward 4 to produce 12 affordable units and asked to use the IEBC chapter 13 points‑based compliance method rather than retrofitting automatic sprinklers. “The chapter 13 method does not lower the bar. It provides a measurable, structured way to ensure life safety, fire protection, and egress,” Mastin said, adding that his team’s score sheet shows the projects meet the chapter 13 threshold.
City staff and the fire marshal described a long-standing local policy requiring sprinklers for residential remodels when a building permit is pulled. Oklahoma City Fire Marshal Mike Wilson said the department has been ‘‘very adamant about fire suppression in residential occupancies’’ and emphasized sprinklers’ role in early fire suppression and occupant safety. “When we do have fires in sprinkled buildings, the sprinklers put it out,” Wilson said.
Applicant counsel Johnny Blassingame pointed to the city’s resolution adopting the 2018 code, which includes language that chapter 13 may apply (“or” phrasing), and argued that the adopted resolution permits the chapter 13 alternative. City staff acknowledged the apparent conflict between two adopted amendments—one in chapter 3 referencing §302.7 and another amending 13.01.2 with the word “or”—and said further administrative or legal review was necessary.
After discussion, the board voted to continue all three appeals to allow staff and legal to reconcile the local amendment requiring sprinklers and the chapter 13 applicability language. The continuance preserves the applicant’s ability to return with the matter resolved administratively or to be scheduled again for a hearing.
