Taking a two unit DC rowhouse back to single family: can the sprinkler system come out?

The call comes a few times a year. A family bought a rowhouse in Columbia Heights or Bloomingdale that a flipper had split into an owner unit and a basement rental, the tenant has moved out, and they want the whole house back. Then somebody asks about the sprinkler system the conversion put in. Can it come out, and should it? The short answer is that it can, through a permit and the fire code official, and that almost nobody who runs the numbers does it.

Why the system is there

The conversion that created the basement unit turned a one family rowhouse into a two family dwelling, and in the District that change pulls in a residential sprinkler system under the DC Residential Code. Our English basement article covers the trigger in detail, and the two unit conversion piece covers the system that usually gets installed, an NFPA 13D system fed off the house water service with a control valve and a few dozen heads. That system was a condition of the building permit and of the certificate of occupancy the two unit building had to carry.

Going back to one unit reverses the trigger. A single family rowhouse that was never sprinklered does not have to add a system when it is renovated, short of the gut alteration cases in our gut renovation article. So the system in your ceilings becomes what the codes call a nonrequired system. That word matters, and it does not mean what owners hope it means.

What the deconversion permit involves

A two unit to one unit change is a permit at DOB, not a quiet weekend project. The building was issued a certificate of occupancy as a two family dwelling, the second kitchen and the separate entrance were part of the approved drawings, and the return to one unit is filed as a change of use with the demolition of the second kitchen, the removal or reconnection of the lockable separation, and the closing out of the second address if one was assigned. Plan review looks at the same sheets it looked at going the other way, and the sprinkler drawings are among them.

Whatever you decide about the system has to appear on those drawings. Either the sheet says the existing 13D system remains in service with no work, or it shows the heads that move with the new wall layout, or it shows a removal. A set that says nothing about the sprinklers comes back with a comment, and the review clock restarts.

What the fire code says about taking a system out

The DC Fire Code is built on the International Fire Code, and two of its lines decide this question. The first says that fire protection systems have to be maintained in operative condition, and that nonrequired systems and equipment shall be inspected, tested and maintained or removed. That is the door. A system the current use does not require can be removed rather than maintained. The second line says it is unlawful for anyone to remove or tamper with a fire suppression system except for maintenance, repairs, or alterations approved by the fire code official. That is the lock on the door. Removal is an approved alteration or it is tampering.

In practice that means the removal is drawn on the permit set, DOB routes it to the fire reviewer, and the approval comes back as part of the permit. The contractor who does the work is a licensed sprinkler contractor, because the riser connects to the domestic water service and the cap has to hold. A general contractor cutting pipe in the ceiling is the scenario our plumbing jobs article warns about, and it ends with a flooded cellar and a tampering citation.

What removal actually costs you

Here is where most owners change their minds. A removal is not free. The system is drained, every head comes out and every ceiling opening is patched and painted, the riser is cut below the control valve and capped, the drain is removed, and the backflow assembly, if the system has one, comes off with notice to DC Water. If the conversion upsized the water service, the larger meter stays unless you file separately to downsize it, and our meter size article explains why that is its own project. You pay a crew to make the house less safe and then you pay a painter.

Keeping the system, by comparison, costs almost nothing. A 13D system has no mandatory annual inspection in the District, the insurance discount keeps coming, and the house keeps the one feature a future buyer with a basement tenant in mind would pay a premium for.

The middle road most owners take

• Keep the system and say so on the drawings. One note on the sprinkler sheet, existing 13D system to remain in service, closes the question with the reviewer and leaves the heads where they are.
• Move the heads the new layout needs. Removing the second kitchen and opening the stair changes room shapes, and a head that covered a closed kitchen may not cover the open room that replaces it. Our moving heads article covers how that is drawn and priced.
• Pull the heads that end up in dead space. If a closet or a bathroom that had a head is coming out entirely, the branch is capped and the drawings show it. That is an alteration, not a removal, and it goes through the same permit.
• Update the handover file. New drawings, the inspection card, and a note on what changed, so the disclosure at the next sale is one page instead of a story.

If you still want it out

Some owners do, usually because the pipe runs through a ceiling they are opening anyway and the heads fight a design. The sequence is fixed. The architect notes the removal on the permit set and the fire reviewer approves it. The sprinkler contractor drains the system, removes every head, caps the riser, and either pulls the pipe from the open ceilings or leaves it abandoned and disconnected above the closed ones. DC Water is told about the backflow assembly. The patching crew closes the holes. The final inspection confirms that no head remains on a dead line.

Quick answers