CITY SQUARE FOOTAGE LIST

Transcription

1 CITY SQUARE FOOTAGE LIST These square footages are the requirements as amended from the Building Official and Code Administration (BOCA) and the International Building Code (IBC), as adopted by the communities listed below. If your town is not listed, there are not any reductions in the fire sprinkler threshold area in your adopted code or not reported on the survey.to update your town or district, or call NIFSAB for the survey form: or toll free 866-2NIFSAB. NO. CITY SQUARE FEET NO. CITY SQUARE FEET 1 Mount Prospect Fire Department Condo Conversion & 40 North Aurora FPD 2000 IBC (u/r:2/2/04) 0 (u/r: 1/05) Manufactured Home 41 North Barrington 2 Wheeling Fire Department Plus manufactured homes 42 Mundelein FD 2000 ICC Fire & Bldg. 3 Oak Forest 0/13D + 50% Commercial Code w/ Admend. (u/r: 02/23/04) 0 Commercial 4 Hickory Hills (u/r: 01/05) Apartment to Condo 43 St. Charles Fire Department 5 Justice Fire Department (u/r: 02/05) multi-family change of (u/r: 08/09/04) 0 Commercial ownership 44 Sauk Village Fire Department 0 6 Bedford Park Fire Department 45 Village of Carol Stream 0-A s; 0-E; 0-H; 0-M,S & F; 0-R 7 Barrington Fire Protection District 46 Village of Northfield 0 (BOCA 1996 Fire Prev.;1999 Bldg.) 8 Des Plaines Fire Department (u/r: 03/07/05) 47 Village of Palatine IBC, IFC, LSC (u/r: 02/22/04) 0 9 Glen Ellyn Fire Company 48 Winfield Fire Department 0 10 Lake Barrington 49 Winnetka Fire Department 0 11 Village of Long Grove 50 Zion Fire Rescue Department 0 12 Long Grove Fire District (u/r: 2004) 51 Berwyn 0 13 Park Ridge Fire Department 1999 BOCA 52 West Chicago 2003 IBC 0 (u/r: 03/04/04) 53 Gurnee (u/r: 05/06/05) 0 14 Round Lake Beach 54 Libertyville Fire Department 1,000-new, existing, additions, 15 La Grange Park Fire Department 0/A, E, H, I, R1, R2; 2,00 (u/r: 05/04/05) remodel 25%+13D* 16 Matteson Fire Department (2003 IBC) 55 Hoffman Estates Fire Department 17 North Maine Fire District 1999 BOCA (u/r:?/23/04) 1,000 for all use groups/13d* (Des Plaines Area) 56 Streamwood Fire Department 1,000 Commercial/13D* 18 Huntley Fire Protection District 57 Oak Brook Fire Department 1,000/High-Rise Retro (u/r: 08/02/04) 58 Hawthorn Woods 19 Village of Huntley (05/2005) (Countryside Fire Protection District) 1,000/commecial plus townhomes 20 Countryside Fire Protection District District: 0/13D; Indian Creek: 0; 59 Vernon Hills 1,000/Commercial + basement Long Grove: 0; Hawthorn Woods: 1,000/commercial (Countryside Fire Protection District) TGI/drywall or sprinkler 13D Plus Townhome plus townhomes; 60 Lombard Fire Department 1,000 Vernon Hills: 1,000/commercial plus basement TGI/drywall or 61 Morton Grove Fire Department 1, BOCA Fire, sprinkler 13D (u/r: 02/25/04) 1999 BOCA Bldg 21 Indian Creek 62 Schaumburg Fire Department 1,000 & High-Rise Retrofit (Countryside Fire Protection District) 63 Stone Park Fire Department 1, St. Charles Countryside 64 Westchester Fire Department 1,000 Fire Protection District 65 Rosemont Fire Department 1500; 2003 IBC/Apt. to Condo 23 Sunnycrest FPD (Flossmoor) 13D* Retro. 24 Buffalo Grove (u/r: 08/03/05) 0 + Townhomes (>3,000 sq. ft. 66 Algonquin Lake In the Hills 1,500 Type IV,V; 3,000 Type II, III; retrofit) Fire Protection District 6,000 Type I; 0 ~ A, E, H 25 Glendale Heights 0 Apartment to Condo Conversion 67 Bloomingdale Fire Department 1,500/2, Bridgeview Fire Department 68 Island Lake 1,500 (u/r: 10/14/04) 0, 2003 IBC; 2003 IFC 69 Warrenville Fire Department 1, City of Lake Forest 2003 IBC, NFPA 1, 101 (u/r: 2/23/04) 0 70 Wauconda Fire District 1999 BOCA District: 0;Wauconda: 1,500; (u/r: 02/23/04) Hawthorn Woods: 1,000; 28 Bloomingdale Fire District 0 N. Barrington: 1,000; 29 Homer Glen 0 Lake Barrington (Residential & Commercial): 0 30 Deer Park 71 Elmhurst Fire Department 1,000; 2, Elwood Fire District 0 72 Clarendon Hills Fire Department 2,00 32 Flossmoor Fire Department 0 73 Darien-Woodridge Fire Prot. Dist. 2, Fox Lake Fire Dept BOCA 74 Little Rock Fox FPD (Plano) 2,000 Commercial; IBC, IFC & (u/r: 02/2004) 0 NFPA Glenside Fire Protection District 0; 1,500; R-3>3, Pleasantview Fire Protection District (LaGrange Highlands) 2, Highland Park Fire Department IBC 2000 (u/r: 03/16/04) 0 Basement TGIs 76 Addison Fire District IBC 2000 (A-1, I, R-1, R-4) 0; (A-2, A-3, A-4, B, (u/r: 02/2004) E, F, M, R-2, S and Mixed Use 36 Homer Fire District Groups) 2,500; (R) NFPA 13R (Unincorporated Homer Glen) 0 77 Hinsdale Fire Dept. 2,500; 5,000, Sprinkler edition 37 Kildeer 2000 Intl. Bldg./LSC 1997 of 500 sq. feet more 78 Crestwood Fire Department 2, Lake Zurich Fire Protection District 0 79 Batavia Fire Department 2,500; 7, Lake Zurich continues on other side *Single Family Homes 13D u/r: = Update Received

2 CITY SQUARE FOOTAGE LIST (continued) NO. CITY SQUARE FEET NO. CITY SQUARE FEET 80 Naperville Fire Department 2,500 Type-5; (H, I, R-1, and R-2) IBC 2000 w/amendments Required/(A-1, A-3, A-4, B, F-1, F-2, (u/r: 02/22/04) M, S-1and S-2) 7,500/5,000 T-5; (A-2) 2,500; (A-5) Per Bldg. Code; (E and U) 5,000/(R-3) Required unless firewall every 2 units; (R-4) Required > 8 residents 81 Western Springs Fire Department 2, Berkeley Fire Department A, E, H, P, R, S; M, B, I - 3, BOCA, FPC and Bldg Code MultiFamily and Commercial 13D 83 Tinley Park Fire Department 3000 (and change of ownership) Plus total area definition 84 Carpentersville 3,000 Commercial; 0 Assembly 1996 BOCA, 2000 NFPA LFC & Reference NFPA Codes (u/r: 03/21/04) 85 Villa Park Fire Dept BOCA (u/r: 02/24/04) 3, Chicago Ridge Fire Department 3500; Apt. to Condo Conversion 87 Oak Lawn Fire Department 3500, 5,000 Multi-Family 88 Oak Park Fire Department A-5=1,000; A-2=3,000; A-1, A-3, (u/r: 07/07/04) A-4=7,500; F=9,000; B, E, M, S=12, West Dundee Fire Dept. 4,00 all 1-2 family new 2000 Intl. Codes (u/r: 02/04/04) construction 90 Rolling Meadows Fire Department 4,000 multi-family retro (Residential 6,000+ Sq. Ft = 13D) 91 Skokie Fire Department 2003 IBC 5,00 Apartment to condo (u/r. 10/14/04) conversions 92 Elk Grove Village 5, Glenview Fire Department 5,000; A-2,500; (13D condos/townhomes) 94 Arlington Heights Fire Dept. 5,000 A use 1996 BOCA (u/r: 03/04/04) (Apt to Condo Retro) 95 Westmont Fire Department 5,000 (13D/R Duplex and 1996 BOCA (u/r: 02/24/04) Townhome) 96 Bartlett 2000 IBC 5,000 4 hr. wall or Sprinklers & 2hr. wall 97 Bellando 5, IBC 98 Belvidere Fire Department 5, Bensenville Fire Department 5, Bourbonnais (Kankakee County) 5, Deerfield-Bannockburn Fire District 5, Elk Grove Fire Department 5, Elmwood Park Fire Dept International (u/r: 03/04/04) 5, Gardner Volunteer Fire Department (u/r: 05/23/04) 5, Homewood Fire Department 5, Itasca (Village and Fire District) 5000, BOCA Fire 1996,Village (u/r: 05/04/05) adopted BOCA Building Lemont FPD A-1 & E = 0; A-2 = 1,000; A-4, B, 2000 IFC & NFPA 101 (u/r: 04/27/04) F-1, & S-1 = 5,000; F-2 = 7, Frankfort Fire Protection District (unincorporated) 5, Northbrook Fire Department 5, Norwood Park Fire Department 1996 BOCA (u/r: 02/25/04) 5, Oakbrook Terrace Fire Department 5, Richton Park Fire Department 5, River Forest Fire Department 5, Riverdale Fire Department 5, Romeoville Fire Dept IBC and Fire (u/r: 2/20/04) 5, Sugar Grove Fire Department 5, Waukegan Fire Dept BOCA w/amend. 5, DuPage County IBC/IFC ,000 Type I-IV; 2,000 Type V (u/r: 10/28/04) 119 Northwest Homer Fire Protection Dist. 7, Bolingbrook Fire Department 7, Broadview Fire Department 7, Elgin Fire Department 7, Lisle-Woodridge FPD 7, Melrose Park Fire Department 7, Mokena Fire District 5, East Dundee Fire District 7500; BOCA Hampshire Fire Department 7, Niles Fire Dept BOCA Bldg. Code (u/r: 02/24/04) 7, Woodstock Fire Department 7500, Int. Fire Code Orland Hills 8,000 (74 seats for restaurants) 131 Orland Park 8,000 (74 seats for restaurants) 132 Orland Fire Protection District 8,000 (74 seats for restaurants) 133 University Park Fire Department 8, New Lenox Fire Protection District 10, Roselle Fire Dept. 10,000 - Commercial & 1996 BOCA, Life Safety Code Industrial 136 Grayslake 10, Round Lake FPD 1996 BOCA, 2000 IBC 10,000 (u/r: 02/24/04) 138 Downers Grove (6,000-15,000 sqft) 1996 BOCA National Building Codes The lower the threshold, the safer your community and the safer your firefighters. Zero square foot means all new commercial buildings have fire sprinklers installed. 52 political entities with zero square feet; 30 towns with 13D! *Single Family Homes 13D u/r: = Update Received

3 IFIA Fall Fire Safety Conference Wednesday, November 16, 2005: Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30-4 p.m. (Includes Tradeshow) Morning Session: Legal Aspects of Code Enforcement Instructor: Dan Peterson - Building & Fire Code Academy Understanding the legalities of performing our jobs is a concern for all inspectors. Dan will cover the current legal aspects of performing inspections. He will use current case law and the Legal Aspects of Code Enforcement as the basis for the session. Afternoon Session: On Which Side of the Plate do You Put Your Salad Fork? Instructor: Guy Trayling - Assistant Fire Marshal Lake Zurich Fire Department Guy will discuss what manners and style should be used. How manners affect the outcome of a fire inspection. He will discuss the morals, ethics and philosophy of fire prevention bureau management. Thursday, November 17, 2005: Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30-4 p.m. Morning Session: Emergency Planning and Preparedness in the 2003 IFC Instructor: Richard A. Piccolo - B & F Technical Code Services, Inc. Chapter 5 of the International Fire Code is titled Emergency Evacuation and Preparedness. If you have adopted this code or in the process of adopting this code you should be aware of the requirements of this chapter. It can affect the effectiveness of these emergency plans. Afternoon Session: Emergency Planning and Preparedness in the 2003 IFC Instructor: Robert Warfel - Special Agent / Haz Mat Response Team Leader The International Fire Code provides the framework to evacuate buildings during an emergency. This presentation will provide the information to handle evacuations on a larger scale. There will be guidance how to plan and execute evacuation on a larger scale. Friday, November 18, 2005: Registration 8 a.m., Training 8:30 a.m. - 1 p.m. Morning Session: CKV is More Than Just a Hood Instructor: George Zawacki and Jay Parikh - Up Your Stack This session will give the information so you will clearly understand commercial kitchen ventilation. It will help you understand the mechanics and the equipment being used. You will know the challenges when you inspect a commercial kitchen hood. * Lunch will be included with all sessions.

4 Tradeshow held in conjuction with Fire Fall Safety Conference: Wednesday, November 16, 2005, 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. / No charge for admittance to the tradeshow to any inspector - training attendance not required. Location: William Tell Holiday Inn 6201 Joliet Road Countryside, IL Registration Form - Return to: Illinois Fire Inspectors Association 120 Lageschulte, Suite 104 Barrington, IL Fax: (847) Name(s): Representing: Address: City/State: Phone: PLEASE INDICATE YOUR SELECTION: (Lunch Included) MEMBER NON-MEMBER Three Day Program $ each $ each Two Day Program $ each $ each Wed. Thurs. Fri. Wednesday Only $85.00 each $95.00 each Thursday Only $85.00 each $95.00 each Friday Only $85.00 each $95.00 each (Includes IFIA Luncheon Meeting) * Certificates will be issued for 3-day participants only! Pre-registration is preferred. There will be a $40 additional fee for walk-in registrations. A service charge of $25.00 will be assessed for any cancellations after November 10, For further information contact the IFIA office at: (847)

5 Major Victory for Illinois FPDs: Illinois Supreme Court Affirms Fire Protection District Authority By Mary M. LaSata Spiegel Fire Protection Districts in Illinois are charged with the responsibility to protect residents and property from the hazards of fire, and must manage this challenge within the financial and operational constraints that Districts face. The responsibility of fire protection districts at times can differ with the rights and responsibilities of other governmental agencies. Such was the case within the Wauconda Fire Protection District where Lake County did not require the installation of a sprinkler system in a new golf course clubhouse, but the Wauconda Fire Protection District Ordinance did require a sprinkler system. In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of Illinois issued its opinion in Wauconda Fire Protection District v. Stonewall Orchards LLP and the County of Lake, Docket No on March 24, The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Second District and held that the Wauconda Fire Protection District Ordinance requiring an operative sprinkler system in certain construction is valid and enforceable. The case was initiated by the Wauconda Fire Protection District ( District ). The District is located in Lake and McHenry Counties in northern Illinois. In 1998, the District Board of Trustees, in conjunction with its Chief, David Dato, passed an ordinance requiring buildings that would be used for a particular purpose to have an operative fire sprinkler system installed as a part of its efforts to control fire loss and risks to residents within the District. The use classifications enumerated in the ordinance were as follows: [a sprinkler system shall be installed in] new construction of buildings of the following use groups as defined by the BOCA Building Code, 1993 Edition; Assembly, Business, Education, Factory and Industrial, High Hazard, Institutional, Mercantile, Residential R1, R2, R3 and Storage. Wauconda Fire Protection District Ordinance No Lake County ( County ) has adopted the BOCA National Building Code Lake County does not require a sprinkler system to be installed in new construction unless it exceeds 10,000 square feet, regardless of its intended use. The defendant, Stonewall Orchards LLP ( Stonewall ) is the owner of the property and operates a golf course within the District s boundary and within unincorporated Lake County. When Stonewall began construction of its golf course clubhouse, the original construction plans for the clubhouse contained plans for an operative sprinkler system. However, the building plans ultimately approved by the County omitted plans for the sprinkler system. At the inception of construction, the District s Deputy Fire Marshall, Joe Schwarz, notified Stonewall of the District s ordinance and supplied a copy of the ordinance to the architect and builder. Stonewall then revised its plans to include a sprinkler system pursuant to the District s ordinance. A supplemental contractor was hired, and a large portion of the sprinkler system was installed. However, prior to final completion of the system and before the system became fully operational, Stonewall was informed by the County that its code did not require the installation of the sprinkler system. The County also notified Stonewall that if the project included an operational sprinkler system, Stonewall would be required to make additional project changes before the County would issue a temporary occupancy permit. Based on this information, Stonewall ceased work on the sprinkler system, and it was not made operational. Subsequent efforts to resolve the impasse were unsuccessful. In June 2002, as completion of the Stonewall clubhouse became imminent, the District filed suit in the Lake County Circuit Court. The District s suit asked the Court to prevent Stonewall from occupying the clubhouse and to prevent Lake County from issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy. In a later amended complaint, the District sought declaratory relief, asking that the court determine that the District has authority under the Fire Protection District Act ( Act ) to adopt and enforce its own ordinances relative to fire prevention and control. The District s position was that pursuant to Section 11 of the Fire Protection District Act (70 ILCS 705/11) the District had the authority to adopt and enforce such ordinances. The specific language of the Act that became the focal point of the litigation is contained within Section 11 of the Act: Except in cities having a population of 500,000 or more inhabitants and except in municipalities in which fire prevention codes have been adopted, the board of trustees has the express power to adopt and enforce fire prevention codes and standards parallel to national standards. (70 ILCS 705/11) (emphasis added) The District was supported at the trial court by the Countryside Fire Protection District, which presented an amicus curiae brief. The County and Stonewall argued in motions to dismiss before the trial court, that the County should be considered a municipality under Section 11. Therefore, the District s ordinance could not be enforced against the County or Stonewall since the County had previously adopted its own codes related to fire prevention. The trial court granted both motions and dismissed the District s complaint. The District then appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Second District. In a split opinion, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court. Wauconda Fire Protection Dist. v. Stonewall Orchards, 343 Ill.App. 3d 374, 797 N.E.2d 1130 (2003). The County then appealed the Appellate Court decision to the Illinois Supreme Court which accepted the appeal. Before the Illinois Supreme Court, the District was joined by the Illinois Association of Fire Protection Districts and the Northern Illinois Alliance of Fire Protection Districts. Attorney Shawn Flaherty, of Ottosen, Trevarthen, Britz, Kelly and Cooper Ltd., wrote the amicus curiae brief for these two organizations in support of the Dis- 18 THE FIRE CALL Spring

6 trict s position. It was hoped by the District and the Associations that the decision of the Supreme Court would provide direction as to whether the authority of fire protection districts could be usurped by counties or other governmental units in the manner argued by Lake County here. The earlier opinion of the Appellate Court appealed by the County held that a county is not considered a municipality under the Act. Therefore, Fire Protection Districts necessarily have concurrent jurisdiction with Counties pursuant to the Act and both the County and the District have authority to regulate the installation of a sprinkler system in the Stonewall clubhouse. While the District ordinance differs from the County code, Stonewall could and would be required to comply with both the County and District s requirements. The mere fact that the District ordinance may be more stringent than a county code is of no legal consequence and would not supersede or invalidate the District s Ordinance. The District argued, and the Appellate Court recognized, that a fire protection district must be able to assess the risks presented within the District and must have the authority to appropriately control those risks. To find otherwise would have made the District a toothless tiger. That is, since the District is charged with the legal duty and obligation to protect the public from the hazards of fire, it must have the enforcement authority to carry out that obligation. In this case, the Stonewall clubhouse is situated in an area of the District with no municipal water source and is not in close proximity to a responding fire station. Since the clubhouse is open to the public and used to host public and private events, the District properly determined that the operative sprinkler system was an appropriate and essential tool to protect both the members of the public who would occupy the facility and the firefighters who would respond in the event of a fire. The Illinois Supreme Court considered the case de novo. That is, the court viewed the matter as a legal issue that the Court had not ruled on in the past and considered the question independently of the lower court rulings and findings. In its analysis, using long established rules of statutory construction, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the County s argument that it should be considered a municipality for purposes of interpreting Section 11 of the Act. The Court stated, This definition [the Statute on Statutes] of municipalities excludes counties. Counties fall into the more general category of units of local government, which, notably, includes municipalities but treats them as distinct from counties. (Illinois Supreme Court Opinion at page 10) In finding that the District has the authority to adopt and enforce such ordinances, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that in some circumstances, an owner may have to comply with more than one code or regulation. Under this interpretation, in some unincorporated areas, both fire protection district and county fire protection regulations will apply, not simply one of the two. This potential double coverage is consistent with ensuring adequate fire protection. (Illinois Supreme Court Opinion at page 10) That is, since the District is charged with the legal duty and obligation to protect the public from the hazards of fire, it must have the enforcement authority to carry out that obligation. The County also argued before the Supreme Court that Section 11 of the Act is unconstitutional in that it treats different District residents differently. That is, if a resident of a District lives in a municipality whose boundaries are within a District, that resident may have different codes than a resident living in unincorporated areas. The Supreme Court rejected this argument as well. The Supreme Court indicated that such distinctions are reasonable and are related to the goal of protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the public by providing adequate fire prevention and control services. (Illinois Supreme Court Opinion at page 13). The final issue the Illinois Supreme Court addressed related to the District s enforcement of its ordinance. Here, the County has control over the issuance of building and occupancy permits. Therefore, the District in its lawsuit in the Circuit Court sought to prevent the County from issuing a certificate of occupancy when the County is aware that issuing a permit would allow the owner to violate the District s ordinance. However, the Illinois Supreme Court held that this relief was not appropriate in this particular case, but did indicate that it may be possible for such a case to arise, stating: The issue of injunctive relief might be different if this case presented a situation in which a fire protection district regulation conflicted with a county regulation. (Illinois Supreme Court Opinion at page 14) However, since the Supreme Court found that issue presented by the District s case here did not present a direct conflict between the two codes, the Court did not specifically address that issue. Therefore, if a fire protection district has or adopts ordinances relative to fire prevention or suppression, care should be taken to ensure that adequate enforcement provisions are included. Then the District may seek enforcement independently. For Illinois fire protection districts, the Supreme Court decision in the Wauconda Fire Protection District case is a landmark. For the first time, the Illinois Supreme Court has stated with crystal clarity, that fire protection districts have the authority to adopt and enforce regulations pursuant to Section 11 of the Illinois Fire Protection District Act. Fire protection district boards are charged with the duty to adopt and enforce fire prevention and protection regulations when appropriate. This case now clearly gives districts in Illinois the teeth to move forward and explore additional alternatives to accomplish its duty to protect the public from the hazards of fire. About the Author: Mary M. LaSata Spiegel of the Law Offices of David Gervais, practices in Crystal Lake, IL, with the focus of her practice on governmental law. Ms. Spiegel ably and successfully represented the Wauconda Fire Protection District before the Circuit, Appellate and the Illinois Supreme Court. Spring 2005 THE FIRE CALL 19