Mr.

Chair, do you want to call the meeting to order?

No, you're good.

You're you're learning it from the start.

So welcome.

My name is Jack Upmore, Chairman of the Building Related Fire Codes Appeals Advisory Board.

Call into order the meeting at 909 on February 10th, 2026.

So go ahead.

Before you we want to do the roll call or you want to do some commentary first.

All right.

So we need to do the roll call, please.

Jack Upmore.

Here.

Lewis Farokless.

Jeff Byer.

Scott Berger.

Here.

John Martin.

Present.

Gregory McFarlane.

Adrian Contreras.

Spencer Ramzel?

Here.

George Salibus.

Here.

Eduardo Del Toro.

Here.

Gary Kent.

Robert Hanley?

Here.

Lewis Colbertson.

Lon.

I'm sorry, Lon.

Apologize.

Michael Rust.

Here.

Mark Ross.

Brian Smith.

Here.

Joe Leos?

Here.

William Burris.

Present.

Karen Carpenter.

Frank Sittler.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Just real quick, if you don't mind.

My name is Emine Tomas, Director of Development Services.

I just want to make sure we all understand.

I have two primary members and two alternates sitting on the dais, and that's okay.

But when it comes to vote, only one needs to vote.

The primary, if if the primary is present, needs to vote.

Otherwise, you cannot vote if if again both of them are sitting on the dies.

Can you state who those are so they know one in the audience?

Yes.

Spencer Ramzell is the primary.

So Spencer, you need to vote.

George, you cannot vote, sorry.

And then let's see who else.

I have Brian Smith primary and Joe Leos is alternate.

So Brian, you you vote.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

This time can we get the approval of the minutes from July 2nd, 2025?

This is Robert Hanley.

Uh, unless somebody's got some changes or modifications.

I move approval.

Brian Smith, second.

We have a motion and a second for the approval of the July 2nd, 2025 meeting minutes.

Do we have any just uh all in favor say aye?

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Do you want to go ahead with your presentation?

Good morning.

Um, thank you again and welcome to the DSD.

Um my name is Lewis.

Mike's not on.

Hello.

All right.

Technical difficulty, sorry about that.

So uh again, thank you uh for for uh being here this morning.

Welcome to uh development services.

Uh my name is Lewis Vamil.

I'm the uh development services engineer for field services upstairs.

Um I am uh your new board liaison.

Um so I apologize for the uh the um any emails that didn't get sent or got sent.

Uh but I'm glad that you're here this morning.

Um we're gonna go ahead and uh we have Spanish interpreting uh available.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, everyone.

Uh dispositivo de interpretation.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you so much.

Lewis, do we have any public comments that we need to address?

Okay.

Hello.

All right.

Uh we've already gone through uh item number one of the board meetings.

So we'll go straight into agenda item number two, which is the appeal of the building officials' decision to deny an exception to the requirement for a fire sprinkler system as mandated by the entertainment fire code, otherwise known as the IFC.

So a couple of uh your responsibilities that we want you to uh just be mindful of to hear hear the appeal.

Do we have have the adopted codes been incorrectly interpreted?

Um do the provisions of the adopted codes not fully apply or don't fully apply.

And has the uh the equally has an equally good or better form of construction been proposed.

Um these are the questions that uh we were you know you should ask yourself.

Um of course be mindful of uh that the requirements of the code cannot be waived.

So a little bit about the uh the project history at hand.

Um Mr.

Octavio Villamontes, um he uh this is the uh the I-10 ice house.

Um it is an existing bar nightclub.

Um it's located at 9518 uh console road.

Um it is a type 2B construction.

Uh the assembly group that we're looking at is A2.

Um so just a little bit uh about the uh course of events and how we led to uh to us being here today.

Minor plans were submitted uh and looked at in the area about October of 2024.

Um the proposal was for a demising wall to reduce the uh fire areas and redo thus reduce the occupant load.

Um the reviewer um review uh well the the uh project was reviewed and uh denied uh after multiple iterations of going kind of going back and forth trying to work with the customer, um the request was ultimately uh put on uh what we call the additional information required um for incorrect usage of the uh or calculations of the occupancy uh load.

Any questions thus far?

Hey, I'm doing good.

Um so after uh after quite some time of uh going back and forth with the uh the customer, um they elected to um to submit for a code modification request.

That code modification request was submitted on December 22nd of uh 2025.

Um the uh the CMR, the way that we uh that we refer to it, um, is for in lieu of providing the code the the required uh fire sprinkler system, um they would like to uh so the there's a laser on here, it's really hard to see.

Um the dark line uh separating um areas uh two uh two fire areas, so area A and area B.

Um area A is on the right hand side with the uh the yellow um looking good.

So it should be on your screens there.

Um the uh with the yellow uh in the in the walkways there and zone B is for storage area.

Um the initial total was about 11,800 uh square feet.

Uh this was separated as the proposal.

The proposal is to uh um separate these into two fire areas, uh area A being 9,000 square feet, area B just shy of 3,000 square feet.

Um they're also proposing to add two additional emergency exits.

Um those are uh circled in red.

And they also provoke proposing to to create clear passageways and other um standing uh in the uh standing area the what's um highlighted in yellow.

Um these areas would be per prohibited to be to stand or uh sit in those areas wanted to include this in there just sir for uh for a clearer view of um of the area in question.

So why are we here?

The changes to the fire code.

Um this a couple years ago, uh back in twin uh 2006.

Uh the IFC mandated fire sprinklers for new bars uh and nightclubs with an occupancy load of a hundred or more.

Um however in 2018 the IFC mandated that for the ex existing nightclubs with an occupancy load of 300 or more, um they had to um come up to into compliance.

Our chapter 11 uh fire code amendments uh provided five years to comply with these uh these requirements.

So just a note on how uh development services uh interprets the uh the code.

Um so we're looking for um the net floor area from there.

We go to this uh uh table in the IBC 1004.5 uh that gives us the uh occupant load factor uh for that particular area.

Um the net floor area uh is defined as the actual occupied area, not including uh unoccupied accessory areas such as corridors, stairways, uh ramps, toilet rooms, and mechanical rooms and closets.

Um so again, in our particular uh case today, uh reminder of what uh a corridor is an a corridor is an enclosed exit access component.

Uh it defines and provides a path of egress travel.

Um I do note the um the factors that we would be using today in our discussion, uh unconcentrated areas at a 15 um occupant load factor of 15 net, and we'll be talking about standing space five uh an occupancy occupant load factor of five.

So this was provided by um the uh the the applicant.

Um I do note the non-fixed seating area that's it's a little hard to see, but that comes out to six thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight square feet.

So we were excuse me, we were provided two uh tables.

We'll go through uh uh both of these uh separately.

So the six thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight um square feet, we're looking at an occupancy load of fifteen uh feet per person comes out to an occupancy of about four four hundred and fifty-five.

Um do note that the storage uh one, two, and three do not have any occupants.

We do believe that that should that should be at least one occupant uh according to the load uh load factor and the way that we're uh that we do our calculations.

Um the bar area one, two, and three, um, there's a load calculation of one and two for bar three.

We also believe that that could be a um an error as you're not accounting, you may not be accounting for the people standing around the the bar at that point particular point in time.

Um according to these calculations, we're looking at an occupancy load of 469.

Now again, you have to the magic number that we're that we're looking for, 299 is the the uh the number that they have to stay under.

Yes, sir.

This uh table is this uh William Burris.

Um the table that's being presented right now.

Is that city prepared table or is that the owner?

This was uh um submitted by the applicant.

Sorry for the uh twirling yellow deals, making sure we uh can see this.

It's a little small.

All right.

So they uh they also um submitted a second uh table.

Uh this one does not they took out um the walking areas is my understanding.

Um the game area one, they uh came out with the uh occupancy load of just ninety-seven.

Um the sitting area, we're looking at a uh an occupancy of uh just one eighteen.

Um these again are calculated on the applicant side.

So the uh when looking at this table, we summed up all of the square footages.

We came out to a total of 4,436.

So if you remember that the number from earlier, 6,86, I believe was was the number.

Um there's a deficit of about two uh two thousand three hundred square feet of um you know space that's not accounted for on this on this calculation.

Um I want to draw your attention also to the covered patio.

The cover patio is let's see.

Come on.

So cover patio we're talking about is uh just shy of 1700 square feet.

Um so due to that they have a uh limited use during during the year, so they're proposing to uh close off a uh portion of this uh patio, which is noted here in their cover patio of um square footage of just 753 square feet.

Yes, sir.

I'm sorry.

Um the uh William Burris.

Uh the patio, does it have it its own independent egress, or is that uh go back through the uh occupied area?

So they do have uh egress at the front and then one towards the back is the uh existing doors.

So that leads us to this point.

Uh the code modification request um was looked at on the 7th of January of this year.

On the 8th, the um the CMR was officially denied by our staff.

Um the basis of denial again is modification of the uh occupancy load under code section 1004.

Um the appeal was then uh um uh submitted and um applicant appealed on uh January 29th, which led us to uh this meeting today.

Staff recommendation.

Uh the staff recommendation to does recommend uh denial of the proposed appeal um as again it would amount to a waiver of the uh of the code.

Do we have any questions at this point?

Had a quick question, but uh you've got two different calculations of square footage, I assume.

Is there uh I'm assuming y'all had some kind of a way to actually measure those square footages in the um on the actual plan here, so we do our own calculation on our side, yes, sir.

And then we um using some of their provided um this is not the uh the you know with it doesn't have all of the uh numbers on there, but we do have uh one where it does have um square footages on some of these.

Okay, so you do have a plan that has measurements on it basically.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Any other questions for me?

Any other questions for me?

Sorry.

This this is my gross.

Can you just kind of plainly state what the uh what the request was that was denied?

What did they want to do?

I mean, I saw all the calculations and everything, but what exactly are they asking for?

They are asking for a uh reduction in load uh in occupancy load.

Um so essentially they are uh taking out all of the walkways um and not incorporating that into their occupancy load, and that uh will bring us below the uh the 300 um occupancy load for fire uh sprinklers.

R Robert Henley Lewis, uh can you what's the fire department's interpretation of this application fires uh chief so our interpretation is that our interpretation is that those uh walkways corridors cannot be sustained is clear uh and therefore uh it's not uh it wouldn't be appropriate to uh remove them from the equation.

Thank you.

Chair Chair, may I?

Kind of to answer that question, I know the question was uh towards the fire department.

I just want to clarify one thing.

So you saw two sets of calculations here.

Both of them were submitted by the owner or the applicant.

The first one, although that's not exactly the way we calculate things, but we were okay with it, but obviously that's over the 299 where sprinklers are required.

So the applicant decided to go back and can you put that screen, the floor plan?

So the applicant came back, did the second calculation, but the way they did it to end up with less than 299 or less than 300, is all the yellow areas here, they are stay set stating that's has zero occupancy load, which doesn't make sense because a lot of it is outside the bar.

So when you have a bar, you're gonna have people standing there ordering, drinking, whatever, sitting maybe or whatever.

But they're saying all this yellow area has zero occupancy load, which nothing in code allows us to do that.

And that's why we are denying this because we couldn't come up with the same calculations they have.

Yes, sir.

Thank you for pointing William Burris.

Uh thank you for pointing that out.

I mean uh that was gonna be my question.

Uh to go back to this diagram.

Uh everything in yellow is being deducted.

Is that correct?

Uh that is correct.

I think that's incorrect.

Uh I mean around the bar area for the first five to seven well, five feet standing room.

You have people backed up against each other.

I've done this for thirty some years, and uh I have deducted spaces, uh square footage for assembly spaces, but no more than the minimum twenty-four or thirty-six inches uh half.

That's it.

This seems uh a little excessive.

That's just initial company.

So if there is no other questions for staff, we're gonna allow the applicant to present.

Any other questions for Lewis right now?

Okay, go ahead.

Just bring the applicant.

Thank you very much, board members, for being here.

Do you have a pointer?

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, well, idea excuse me, could you state your name, please, sir?

Yes, October Viramontes.

What is it?

Octavio Viramontes.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much, board members, for being here.

So okay, we we're not really requesting to waive the code or anything like that.

Uh we're really trying to apply the the fact that it's out rise to sometimes do modifications when there's like uh special cases where you can see that life safety is maintained, and that's what we're trying to sort of prove here.

Um we understand how the IBC uh asks us to calculate uh occupancy.

We completely understand that by square footage, it definitely doesn't meet.

We're talking about 460 plus uh uh occupancy load.

Uh in this case, the way the this establishments operate uh does not go over the uh three hundred uh occupancy load.

Um we we have ways to prove that uh it I mean uh in a big event it doesn't go over two fifty.

Why is that?

Because uh a lot of the activities that take place in this place is is is like the gaming activities.

They have a dart uh area.

Which one is the button for the I wanna point out the oh the uh thank you parmi okay.

Areas like like like the ones around here are are areas where like uh they they they play darts.

So of course there's an area where people is not gonna access actually.

They have several video screens like like this area here that also and and and even here, you know, in different walls they have they have areas where they're projecting games and and and videos and different uh uh things that do not allow people to be there.

And uh one of the things that that is positive about this bar is also that the fact that uh that that it doesn't feel crowded.

And uh like like I said, we have proof that it it never goes over that occupancy, even though the area could allow for more people, the activities will not allow the the the occupancy.

We also know that it's uh type two B building.

It's a building that that as we know will not easily catch fire because of the way it's is is constructed.

And we're also willing to reduce any any danger by by creating this firewall separating an ex existing storage space to even reduce the possibility of of something adding fire.

Additional to that, um there are some areas that are have uh carpeting on the floor that that is also being proposed to be removed so there's only concrete uh on on the floors as finishes just to add safety to the way the building is constructed.

And on top of that, uh we're also proposing to add exits to to to the building.

So although we're we're willing to somehow as the authorities to cap the the capability of allowing people in to 299, we want to have uh enough access for 299 plus.

Of course, we're not attempting to to put uh that amount of people in there.

But um what we're trying to ask here is cap the the possibility of having more people in there.

Uh I'm sure there's a way that the code can tell us, hey, if we have an inspector out there that sees one more than 2029, we see 300, you'll be shut down.

You will, I mean, we'll throw the queue away, whatever.

That's what uh our our client is willing because he knows he can operate with under 200 and 99 without any problems.

And we know the place offers the the safety to operate in in those conditions like I mentioned because we have enough exits, because we have uh the construction methods which is safe, and also because the place is generally not crowded.

And we also feel that the fact that it's not crowded helps to the safety of it.

One of the many possibilities that some point we we saw was actually putting more firewalls inside the building to to have more fire separations.

We know that's that's a way of keeping even more occupancy that uh we're asking for.

But it it it it blocks really the possibility of people interacting and going from one place to another, and actually I guess controlling what's going on in the place.

So that's why we're we're asking to keep it open instead of dividing with more firewalls, and instead of that just adding more fire exits, and of course we're here to negotiate and see we're willing to to see how we can make it safe without having to go to that uh huge expense at this point of having to fire a sprinkler.

And it's not just the cost of the fire sprinklers, is the fact that they have to do a lot of infrastructure to be able to bring the the the water into the building.

That's one of the main issues at this point.

And I'm open to questions.

So what what is the uh Jack up Moore?

What is the uh current occupancy load of your your open right now, right?

Yes, yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

I believe it's 468.

468.

So you'd be reducing it down to 299.

That is correct.

Maximum, come on up.

Yeah.

So when we got the original occupancy load, yeah.

My name's Tim Etson, I'm the president of San Atlanta Inc.

in my tie, which is the building.

Okay.

We've been in business for 18 years, and that back area right there where the firewall is.

We never we got that 468 because we got the building and we got the business in.

But we never ever used that area in the back that was divided.

So we always had the 468, even though that were not used in the back area where the fire the firewall is proposed.

So I wanted to tell you that.

So you would you would your proposal also has that you'd reduce your occupancy load to 299, is that what you're saying?

Yes, sir.

I I don't have a problem with 299 on occupancy load, because right now I don't go over it.

But for COVID, which was five years ago, you know, there would have been given times where I would have went over that.

But more bars have opened since then, and a lot of more people doesn't go out these days, and I don't go over it.

And then like for an example, uh I'm gonna throw this out there.

I had a UC fight, a pay-per-view fight on the 31st of January, and I had an in and out counter.

I have two doormen, and I also did fire watch that night because I downloaded the application because the fire department told me where to get it.

So I did do that.

Um the traffic flow everybody said everybody's talking about, it does leave a lot of space for people to exit if there was a fire, because not everybody is so compact because I have the square footage.

But I do want to say that I can get by with the 299.

And if I may add something to this, as you well know, this has been a long endeavor for me.

And I didn't so-called kick the can down the road, because I know this wasn't going away.

Development service has been very helpful to me.

The fire department, Lieutenant Griffin's been very helpful for me.

Miss A with the city's attorney's office been helpful with me, even the judge where I got the tickets.

I'm just telling you this everybody's been very helpful with me.

And I want to tell everybody thank you for that.

And that really comes from my heart.

That's what I have to say on that.

As you well know, I had to sign the letter agreement that the city put out where if I get denied, I had to get a sprinkler system in six months.

And if I get denied today, I had three months to apply for the TCO.

But I did sign that agreement with the city attorney's office.

I wanted to let y'all know that as well.

And if you have any questions for me, I'd be more than happy to try to answer them.

This is my growth.

So just a quick question on the history.

So this is an operating business, and basically you're here because the five-year um safe harbor from the 2018 code revision has expired, and then so you're found not to have the sprinkler system because of the occupant loaders.

Okay.

Thanks.

Yes, sir.

But I had the assumption, which is a horrible word.

I always thought that I was grandfathered in.

And then I got that letter, and then I thought I was still grandfathered in.

And then Lieutenant Griffin came by from the fire department, told me said it didn't apply to me.

So the new ordinance applies to me.

And then from there I've been trying my best to do what I can to get through this, and now here we are today.

But I really appreciate your time.

Anyone have any questions for me, sir?

Spencer Ramsell, I mean you haven't really discussed the actual cost of that, but I mean ideas behind it, you could split it into two buildings and have an open way between it, and you could that would split your occupancy at that point.

I mean, just a suggestion or idea there.

Well, we we looked at in the middle of the stages going through this with development services and with my architect and my engineer, it would basically take putting a wall straight down the middle.

And that will totally ruin the atmosphere of the club.

It would confuse people.

Does that make sense, sir?

And then that's when we just started going through this.

Because we even looked at putting the wall down the middle, and I went back to the club and I looked, I was just like, I mean, I got 17 dartboards.

If you look up there with the dartboards are, which no one's gonna sit in front of a dartboard, I'm sure everybody knows that, right?

But the the wall down the middle doesn't do me any good, sir.

Yeah, you've got a concept on one side and a concept on another side.

Yeah.

Which basically I would what I was told doesn't mean that person was right.

I would have to get two addresses, like suite A, suite B, wouldn't I?

Is that correct?

I don't mean the city, but uh I believe that's you build the fire for your you still have the same address.

You only have a different address.

It would be very difficult to put firewalls.

So that would be basically off the table then, right, sir.

You'd have to go with the city on that.

Fair enough.

Oh, thank you, William.

Yes, just to confirm uh if you installed a fire barrier, you would not be required to have two addresses.

I have gotten bids for my sprinkler system.

So I've been doing my homework.

My sprinkler system is gonna run 220,000 dollars.

Pardon?

220,000.

Robert Haneley, and how long will it take you to amateurize that with the reduced rates for your insurance premiums?

That's a good question.

Um I'm sure my premium would go down a little bit.

Uh huh.

So um I don't have to answer that.

I thought I had an answer to everything, but it it would go down some.

But as you well know, I'm sure you know nightclub and bars or insurance are pretty high because we also carry liquor liability.

I'd be a fool not to carry liquor liability because then it comes at me.

Um the 219,000 dollars is the lowest bid I've gotten for the sprinkler system.

And I'm sure everybody in this room has done construction before, something always happens that adds to it.

So I'm sure I could probably add another 20 something, 30,000 on top of that.

Part of the 219,000 for the sprinkler system, 74,000 of it is getting the water from the sidewalk to the building.

And that's 74,000 is part of the 219,000 dollars I'm talking about.

That one caught me way off guard to be honest with you, because they're running about 34 feet, and then you build a rising room and all the plumbing goes to that.

The stuff that goes up in the ceiling, that's the easy part.

Hard part is getting order to the building.

And then also I was told you gotta worry about and that building was built in the 1980s.

They could be hasbesses around the piping.

And yeah, and that that was the final bid.

I really think they're gonna run into some problems.

I mean, I've never been successful building something, didn't run into a problem.

There's no easy button like Home Depot.

So I didn't want to tell you all that.

But I really appreciate your time, and I really mean that.

And everybody has been super helpful, especially the fire department.

So just a quick question, Jack up more here for my lack of knowledge of it, but you can't like a pool or place put a maximum occupancy load sign in your place that says no more than 285 people or something like that.

Is that not an option?

So, Chair, you mean just to put a sign and decide what your occupancy load is?

Is that not decide what your occupancy load is but restrict it to an occupancy of say no more than a hundred people in here or no more than two hundred, whatever.

So the the building code and the fire code in chapter 10 tells you exactly how to calculate the occupancy load based on the square footage based on the use.

So we review it per area.

So we look at each room, what type of occupancy gonna happen in that room, and we use the table to calculate it.

So we don't just come up with our own number saying I feel or I believe that this place is gonna have only 100 people or 200 people.

I mean, we we we go through the code and we calculate it appropriately.

Okay, I understand.

Brian Smith.

So that's where I was gonna go with it.

Is it it's really for you asking, is there a compromise in here how to make it work?

You almost have to go backwards.

So you have to look at from your design and change some of the designs to meet the intent of the code.

So you have true walkways where the true walkways are where they're gonna take that out, and it doesn't get confusing.

And if you have to make some additional storage, then you can do some additional things.

But you're gonna have to modify the space to get to that 299 number by working backwards and finding out what are the important things and working with the square footage, and you will need a designer to be able to get through and and figure that out.

But you can go backwards to heat hit the intent of the code, because you can't just change and say this is what we're gonna do.

You have to go with what are the true walkways, what are the true areas and these type of things that the intent wants you that you can deduct and make it work and try to keep a flow.

But the it's the only way that you can make this work.

Because using this space that you have here, you are going over.

So the only way to get under is a redesign, and it could keep the main space, so keep your same areas, but just doing it in a way that meets that intent of the code is just my observation of looking at it.

Which would probably be like what Miami Architect talked about months ago would be almost like putting the wall down the middle.

So there could be several different ways and I tell you, you know, ways of doing it.

Yes, but it's it's understanding because the way you have right now with the yellows, you it doesn't work with that circulation.

I mean, you can look at probably pictures and see people around it, it doesn't meet that intent of the code.

So it's using those information of how you can reset things to be able to use more for true hallways that aren't in those areas, so you can take those out.

But anything that meets the intent of the code as far as what can be removed to bring down your square footage, just like a means that it's all about square footage is to get from the occupancies and some of the things that you can remove.

So it's a design issue.

If you're not wanting to put sprinklers, that's the only way to get to 299.

I totally understand, sir.

Um this Robert Handler.

So the the if they sprinkled it, um I mean uh what's the occupancy that they can obviously uh use in that building?

I mean, if they sprinkle a place, uh their their current occupancy will be obviously in stated.

Now, if they believe they can have even more people, we can look at it again.

Uh but at this point we know they have uh certificate of occupancy with 600 uh number 469.

I'm just in my mind having been in the industry years ago.

Is I only get 299 people, or I get 469 and each one has a price tag on it, and so you're gonna generate more revenue with more people.

Okay.

Go ahead.

William.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um, um I'm assuming uh not including the egress board plan left, uh, which is reduced storage, that egress width that's provided uh accounts for the current occupant load or calculated occupant load, and also that the uh may exit or entrance uh accounts for 50 percent that's been calculated.

That's really good question, William.

Um I don't know the answer to that.

I don't think we recalculated the egress at all.

So just again to remind everybody uh this is existing facility, so I I understand the owner's comment about he thought he was grandfathered.

Uh we all thought he was grandfathered up to 2018 when the code changed and it was a retroactive requirement.

The City of San Antonio, with your help and other people's help, when we reviewed the code, we we agreed that asking existing business to install sprinkler immediately is not appropriate.

So we gave them five years.

Other cities gave only two years, for example, but we gave five years, and obviously the five years came and gone, and they haven't complied.

Like in this case, they haven't complied.

So we we did not go back as far as reviewing everything on the property, stating do they need more egress or not, do they need this or not?

Their existing business, and the only retroactive requirement is the sprinkler systems.

So we are not trying to bring this location completely up to code to today's code.

This Robert Hamley, I mean, thank you for that.

Uh this committee, this uh board uh went through this conversation when this amendment came up, and there was a lot of discussion, a lot of dialogue and pros and cons.

So uh I appreciate it.

I just finished the project that was had that was built in 75 that had to do this, but it was a residential high-rise.

So I know that the city um spent a lot of time in energy drafting up this ordinance, and then we all reviewed it, made comments on it, and it was passed.

So it's it's a little difficult for me uh since you're I haven't seen any waivers of this fire sprinkler requirement based on occupant load or occupancy type, just sort of say, hey.

Uh because you I I absolutely refuse to think that you can control 299 people.

So how many people were there on the Super Bowl?

Four or five hundred.

That's that's a very slippery slope that we as a board are gonna go down if we say we'll take out all the yellow areas because they're circulation.

So that's just my thought and comments.

May I say something?

Sure, ma'am.

Sure, go ahead.

You know, on this thing first started, you know, it's been a minute.

So I've like I said, I have doorman that they're and I have an in and out counter.

And I just I know you're only taking my word here, sir.

And my mother told me my words everything.

So I've never went over the 299 because I'm diligent about keeping the count down.

And to be honest with you, I really didn't have to turn anybody away.

And Super Bowl, I can tell you how many people I had.

I had 167 people for what it's worth.

You know, Super Bowl, more people stay at home now and barbecue and they realize it's cheaper.

That that's just my philosophy, that's all.

But I understand.

But I do want to tell you thank you for your time because you're doing a question as well.

I was just gonna say if there's no more questions, we'd let him sit down before we start.

The banes I didn't have to stand there and listen to the floor.

Sorry, I have Brian Smith had one other question.

What what is the highest based upon your counting since you've done it?

What is the highest number that you've had?

Total in the club at one time or for the whole nine?

One time.

267.

But then you know the out, you know, people come and go.

Yes, sir.

And and it's it um there was a Jake Paul fight, which I hope you didn't watch that fight.

So it'll still that was a circus.

But thank you, Chair.

Y'all have any more questions for me?

No, I don't I don't think so.

May I ask one more question?

Sure, go ahead.

If you guys deny me, I have 72 hours per the agreement that the city wrote.

Are you all familiar with the agreement that the city wrote to all seven, eight of us bars?

If you deny me, I have 72 hours to apply for a temporary TCO.

And then that agreement gives me six months to get a sprinkler system.

But I get to still keep my doors open per the agreement.

Does that make sense, everybody?

I can I can walk you through that.

Uh I'll explain it if if you wish, Chair and board members.

Um so uh I didn't want to talk about this because we're talking about this one case, but let me give you a little bit more history.

So 2018, the code was adopted, we gave five years.

The fire department did uh evaluation on about 600 locations.

They were not all bars or nightclubs.

They reviewed all those 600 locations, and they ended up with about 30 or 32, I think, locations that are nightclubs or bars, and they are over 300.

So those are the ones they need to comply with the code in five years.

Fast forward in 2024, we had only this five years ended October 1, 2023.

February 2024, so a few months after, there was only 15 locations that they did not comply.

The fire department worked with them.

Uh they went down to seven locations.

This location is one of those seven.

So obviously they are out of time.

We don't want to shut any business down.

We want we are pro-business, right?

We understand that.

And so we had the city attorney's office, my office, with the owners or their representatives.

We we talked and we said, okay, what do you need to do to get this done?

So out of the seven locations, three of them requested 90 days to finalize it because two of them they installed the sprinkler.

They just need to tie in to SAS and do inspections.

One location is doing a fire barrier to have two fire areas, and he'll be under the 300 for each area.

Uh the other four, or let me say the other three signed a six-month, said okay, give me a TCO for now for two ninety-nine, and in six months I'll install the sprinkler.

This location kind of did the same thing with the caveat because he appealed.

We said your six month doesn't start till we hear the the case.

So if you guys deny him, we will help him to get his TCO for two ninety-nine, so he can't continue to operate with that level temporarily for six months until he installed the sprinkler system.

And this Robert Haney.

I mean uh just trying to project into the future.

Let's say the six months passes and the system is not up and operational.

What is the outcome of that?

What's the recourse for the city?

The recourse at that time is he needs to shut down until he complete the sprinkler system.

The other part of that question is is having gone through this on several occasions, uh, get an expedited review if he puts the fire sprinkler system in there and not have to wait an ex thank you, Christian.

Yes, yes, yes, to your answer.

One one of the six locations or one of the three locations that they they want to do sprinkler system, they just applied yesterday, and I got an email saying we applied can you expedite it?

I emailed it to Crystal yesterday night, and she responded yesterday night after hours that yes, we can expedite it.

Thank you.

Okay.

So really are our options up here, Jacob Mork Chairman.

Uh is that you either have to redesign your entire restaurant with a firewall of some sort to get two spaces to get underneath the oper the occupancy load, or you have to do a sprinkler system.

I mean, our hands are pretty tight up here.

We can't set precedent.

That's not what we're here for.

Uh for these different rules that are in chapter 10.

But you're limited, you've got several options, or you shut down.

I mean, that's the unfortunate part about this for an existing business, and I and I feel for you anybody that has a business would understand that you're working, you're doing everything you can, you've been doing it for a long time, but then also they said no, you can't do that anymore.

And that's hard.

Uh that pushes people out into the county and all that, but it is the the rules that we live in, and and I don't think anybody up here likes it, but it is what it is.

Yes, sir.

Um as far as redesigning and putting a wall down the middle, that would not be yeah, that's a hard one.

So I'm not telling you how to redesign.

I'm just saying that's fair with the rules.

That's something you'd have to work out with the city, your architect, and everybody else.

Well, I appreciate y'all's time.

Anybody?

Thank you.

Yeah, Brian Smith.

I mean, that is the easiest way is the wall, but there is another way of doing it without doing it, but it would take a design and an engineer to go through to properly interpret the code as far as your walkways and such, so that there's no ambiguous, this is ambiguous as far as what you have here, it doesn't work.

So you have to have something that truly shows that the city will go, yes, this makes sense, it's part of the intent of the code and works.

So you do have a couple options, but you don't have a lot of time.

But us as a board, we would have to know which way that was going, and if if it was as this, this is pretty straightforward as it is designed at the moment.

Yeah.

I really appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, for everything, all you guys.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions, anybody?

Let's make sure somebody says that's right.

Would somebody like to entertain a motion on this so we can just have discussion on it?

That five gentlemen of the order, sure.

Um that us as a board would um deny the appeal.

Um to um not put sprinklers.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

Second.

John Martin.

We have a motion and a second for the denial.

Any discussion?

Yeah, this is my cross.

I you know, it's not really for us to offer design advice on this board.

Um, you know, as a business owner, uh I feel for you, you know.

I I I would imagine that there's nobody in this room that cares more about what would happen to your customers than than you do.

Um but the fact of the matter is that we can't just will uh away the design of the building and and cut out square feet to you know to to make the the make it work for the design low that you want.

Um and so uh yeah, for that reason I'll probably vote in favor of this motion, but uh you know not not without understanding what it means for your business.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yeah, just just again, Brian Smith.

I I do not like it making this motion for it.

I think you were given some design things in here that weren't appropriate of how it comes across, and there are our ways of doing it.

Um but as we are proposed here and what we're given, um our specialty is to follow the code, and we have to only go with what is given here.

And um, so as done that, that's why I had to do that particular thing.

But looking at it, I can see that there are ways of doing it, but that's not our job.

That's other professionals to go through and figure those things out and give you options as a business owner to make that work.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, sir.

That's correct.

Anybody anybody else?

All in favor say aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

What do we got?

Uh can I get the director's report, please?

Lewis, is that gonna be you?

Yes, sir.

Are you the acting director?

Uh no.

Uh I didn't think so.

Lewis, do you have any updates?

Um just one effective uh thank you.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Um effective April 1st, 2026.

All boards and commissions will discontinue accepting phone and uh voicemail testimony.

Um just wanted to give you that heads up.

But other than that, I don't have anything else.

I don't have any updates, Crystal.

We're good, Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

If we don't have anything else, can we entertain a motion for adjournment?

Just uh before you do that, can I say one thing?

Sure.

It's not necessarily new business, but and I don't want to belabor the meeting, but um when we finished the last code of review, we talked about seating a group to look at the permit pooling process and how it affects um business owners and the way they pull permits to make that process easy per or at least functional.

Um so you know, not not to be dis like now necessarily to talk about it, but I'd love to see if we can't schedule a time to actually sit that group and make some progress on that.

Thank you.

This is uh Robert Hanley.

It is 10 oh two a.m.

I move uh for adjournment.

All in for Brian Smith, second?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Motion carries.

Comment.

Did you have a comment, Robert?

Sorry, William Burris.

I had a question for the city uh on the adoption process for the next slide.

Sir, what is your question?

Are you ready to get started now?

It's it's time.

Is that forthcoming?

Yes.

So ICC is still going through the code hearings right now, right?

So we have staff attend and vote um in April, I think in Connecticut.

Uh so once those are finalized, then the online versions will get updated and then the books will get printed, published.

Um yeah, probably three years ago when we did it.

Yes.

This 2024, we were behind, I think about 18 months behind.

So we are looking to get back on schedule and get those pending items um back on the agenda, like Mike mentioned, um, and actually start review of the energy code.

Uh but that'll be at a means direction when we get started.

Uh, we're also looking at the online versions of the code for you guys, right?

So you don't have to carry around a bunch of books.

I see some head nods that that may be beneficial.

So we're doing a cost analysis of that as well.

Should we fudge?

Should we fudge the numbers?

Oh, yes, absolutely.

The not both.

We're gonna hold off on that one.

Okay.

So we'll be sending out information on that timeline for all codes because the unified development code is also a part of that conversation, so it's going to be another fun uh couple of years.

So we'll be sending out that timeline.

The conversation will begin in twenty-six and the formal process will begin in twenty-seven.

Where it's a we are required to get prepared, if you will, on all our code discussions internally.

Um, so we'll be doing that across the board, not just with development services, but with other departments as well.

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate your time.