Fire Egress Rules
Rule status: Proposed
Agency: LOFT BOARD
Comment by date: July 25, 2024
Rule Full Text
Proposed-Fire-Egress-Rule-for-Publication.pdf
The New York City Loft Board (Loft Board) is proposing to amend its rules. The amendments will require compliance with basic fire protection laws prior to removal of a building from the Loft Board’s jurisdiction and impose a fine when compliance is not achieved.
Attendees who need reasonable accommodation for a disability such as a sign language translation should contact the agency by calling 1 (212) 393-2616 or emailing [email protected] by July 11, 2024
Send comments by
- Email: [email protected]
- Fax: 1 (646) 500-6169
- Mail: New York City Loft Board, 280 Broadway Room/Floor: 5th Floor ; New York, New York 10007
Public Hearings
Date
July 18, 2024
1:00pm - 2:00pm EST
Location
22 Reade Street, First Floor
New York New York 10007
Connect Virtually
https://tinyurl.com/bdetkef8Via internet:
When prompted, enter the following meeting ID: 273 278 258 609 and
Password: CTUz4M
Join via phone only:
To join the meeting by phone only, use the following information to connect:
Phone: 1-646-893-7101
Phone Conference ID: 106 919 30#
Disability Accommodation
Comments are now closed.
Online comments: 6
-
TaxFax
Will this apply to elected officials as well? CM Darlene Mealy seems to be able to avoid paying HPD fines. Will someone in her role also be able to avoid these fire protection requirements? See her building at 869 Herkimer St which has $17K in past due HPD enforcement issues.
-
Lee in Brooklyn
I live and work in a loft law covered building that has been through most of the process of legalization with oversight by the Loft Board and the DOB. Clearly fire issues have been addressed in the plan for the legalization of our building. I’ve seen evidence of this in sprinkler work that has been done and fire alarm system installed. However I saw little or no alterations done to the interior stairways which are now considered fire egress. They were isolated from the rest of the building by fire breaks and are well serviced with sprinklers, but the staircases were designed in the early 1900s and probably should be assessed for safety, especially as they would be used in a smokey dark emergency. Other aspects of the building were regulated in the legalization process to be ADA adaptable and ADA accessible, but not the stairways. I support more stringent oversight of fire egress in the legalization process, especially if this is done by the loftboard in an effort to ensure that loft tenants end up in safe spaces.
-
Tenants
The stairs in our building that would be used for egress are frequently blocked with construction materials and trash. They are also quite old and slanted in places. There definitely needs to be more stringent requirements for stairs to qualify as proper fire egress.
-
John Gotman
Dear NYC Loft Board,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed new rules on fire egress and their implications for our building’s fire escapes. As tenants at 109-111 West 24th Street, we are currently dealing with significant violations related to our building’s facade (FISPNRF bin #1014982, amounting to $119,700.00). These violations directly impact the condition of our fire escapes.
While I am unable to comment on the integrity of the front fire escape, I must emphasize that the rear fire escape, which provides access to our loft, is in extremely poor condition. The structure shifts underfoot, making egress both hazardous and dubious.
I urge the Board to consider the new egress rules and to ensure that existing fire escape conditions are thoroughly evaluated and addressed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John Gotman
109-111 West 24th Street, 3R
New York, NY 10011 -
Doreen Gallo
I have lived at 177 Water Street since 1980. I would not have been eligible for the loft law if I didn’t have a fire escape. The representative for current owner at a Community Board Land Use meeting said they have a permit from DOB to remove the fire escape and said that the adjacent owner insisted on it. It is not true. Jared Dellevalle, President of ALLOY, said while it is his right, that he would not subject the tenants from having the fire escape. The owners insist that an entrance/egress and a sprinkler system is enough to safeguard us in case of fire. In addition, the owner put a shaft directly in front of our stairways, changing the 36″ dimension to 30″. Removing our fire escape will put all the residents in jeopardy. The landlord has continued to harass the tenants through legalization. The commercial floor is not properly foreboded between the ground commercial floor and the 2nd floor which is residential. I implore you to safe guard residents and insist that our fire escape remains in good working order and REMAINS!
-
Octavio Molina
I live at 177 Water Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. The current landlord has filed with DOB to remove the fire escape from the back of the building. The adjacent owner agreed to let it remain. I have lived on the 2nd floor of this building since 1980. Since the owner purchase our building he has compromised the safety of our building by not fire coding his commercial ground floor and my residential floor on the second floor. The owner put a shaft directly in front of my door way compromising my only entrance, exit. He states that the sprinkler and a compromised egress is enough to protect residents. I would never have been eligible for the loft law if I did not have a fire escape and now DOB says it is okay to remove. There has been no maintenance on the fire escape since the owner bought the building over 10 years ago, The fire extinguishers in the hallway have expired. This proposed removal of our building’s fire escape puts residents in jeopardy and ask that you strengthen provisions protecting tenants. Thank you for your consideration