[updated below, Oct. 11, 2013 and Oct. 16, 2013] Under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), I formally requested information from the City of Ithaca Building Department concerning several Building Code violations in Milstein Hall:

1. I asked to examine an approved document, including egress calculations, showing current exit requirements from the upper level of Milstein Hall, Cornell. This is important because the “issued for construction” documents, upon which a building permit was issued, show only two exits from the upper level, whereas a recently posted occupancy sign (dated June 17, 2013) indicates 530 occupants in the space. A third exit into Rand Hall was created, as would be required for this occupant load, but the exit stair in Rand Hall was never upgraded as would be required.

2. I asked to examine document(s) indicating the current use and occupancy group (including calculations for maximum number of occupants) for the Crit Room under the dome, in the lower level of Milstein Hall. Because the recently posted occupancy sign, limiting the number of persons in the space to 49, has no basis in the Building Code, I want to establish what calculations and assumptions were submitted by Cornell and approved by the City of Ithaca. I can only imagine two explanations, both flawed: either the calculated occupancy is admittedly greater than 49 persons, but the City of Ithaca believes that a single exit in such a space remains acceptable as long as a sign is posted; or the calculated occupancy is actually 49 persons, but based on an erroneous use of a “business” occupancy load of 100 square feet per person. While the occupancy group for a college building is Group B (“Business”), the actual “use” of this space is not what the Code characterizes as “business use” but rather is classroom or assembly use. To design a classroom/critique room/assembly room with an occupancy load of 100 square feet per person is clearly unsafe and inappropriate.

3. I asked to examine document(s) showing why 1-sided sprinklers, designed for exterior walls required to be fire-rated for protection — i.e., designed to protect an adjacent building from a fire in Sibley Hall — have been approved for the ground floor and basement fire-barrier walls between Milstein and Sibley Halls (a single building). Cornell made an error in specifying 3/4-hour fire-resistance rated glazing instead of 1-hour fire-resistance rated glazing for some the required fire barrier openings at the ground floor and basement level of Sibley Hall. Instead of fixing this mistake, they installed a sprinkler system on the inside face of the 3/4-hour windows. Such an application is designed for, and approved for, situations where you must protect an adjacent building from a fire originating in Sibley Hall. This application does nothing to satisfy the requirement for a 1-hour fire barrier wall separating Sibley and Milstein Halls, which constitute a single building (Milstein Hall is an addition to Sibley and Rand Halls, not a separate building).

4. I asked to examine the City of Ithaca Building Department’s submittal to the Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Appeal, required per the Board’s findings in response to petition 2013-0250, “on the testified approvals of the compliance testing lab” concerning Tyco sprinklers used in 2nd-floor fire barrier between Milstein and Sibley Halls. Although the Board of Appeal sustained the City of Ithaca code enforcement official’s ruling on the use of double-sided sprinklers to create a 1-hour fire-resistance rated wall between Milstein and Sibley Halls, their “finding” was contingent upon seeing some documentation representing an official approval of this application. As the sprinkler application violates at least two requirements of the manufacturer (the glazing contains a horizontal mullion, and the glazing is within 2 inches of combustible material), I am curious how the City of Ithaca (via Cornell) will produce any document that validates their contention that the assembly is compliant.

[update 1: Oct. 11, 2013] On Oct. 9, 2013, I met with City of Ithaca Building Commissioner Mike Niechwiadowicz (Mike N.) and asked him about the four FOIL requests I had filed. Following are my notes from this meeting:

1. Egress from upper level of Milstein Hall:
I asked how and when the egress occupant load and number of exits were changed from the “Issued for Construction” drawings (Dec. 5, 2008) to the current situation. Originally, 2 exits were shown; recently, a third exit was added from Milstein into Rand Hall.

Mike N. said that this decision was reached working with the Fire Dept. and Building Dept.; that it was on the punch list for a Certificate of Occupancy, but that otherwise, neither calculations nor other documentation is available to show how this decision was reached.

I asked if it was appropriate for such changes in exits to be implemented without a paper trail; Mike N. said it was appropriate; that no documentation was required.

I asked about the lack of a guard rail on the Rand Hall stair that is now part of the Milstein Hall exit. Mike N. had no comment on this potentially noncompliant stair, neither acknowledging nor denying that the stair had or didn’t have, or needed or didn’t need, such a guard.

2. Occupancy of Crit Room changed to 49 occupant limit:
I asked Mike N. how the original occupancy type and load was changed from the original (i.e., from A-3 Assembly space to Group B Business use).

Mike N. said that there was no documentation, but that the space now complied with the findings of the Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Appeal (Petition No. 2013-0250). He said that as a Group B occupancy, one could assume an occupant density of 100 square feet per person, so that the limit of 49 was therefore appropriate.

I pointed out that a Group B occupancy classification did not mean that the use of the space was “business use” and that therefore the 100 square foot per person number might not be appropriate. He had no comment.

3. Use of 1-sided Tyco sprinklers for Milstein-Sibley fire barriers at basement and ground level:
I asked if there was any documentation that validated the use of 1-sided sprinklers in this application. I pointed out that the Tyco specifications, as well as the NER-516 document, only allow the use of 1-sided sprinklers for exterior walls that are required to be rated for protection, a condition that does not apply to fire barriers in general, and does not apply specifically to the Milstein-Sibley fire barrier.

Mike N. said that there was no documentation on this question, but that he thought the use of such 1-sided sprinklers was appropriate and compliant.

4. Submittal to Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Appeal from City of Ithaca “on the testified approvals of the compliance testing lab”:
I told Mike N. that I had already received a copy from Charles Bliss of the DCEA. I told Mike N. that I was surprised that this document was submitted, as I thought that the Board of Appeal wanted validation of the “testified approvals,” where the testimony referred to the specific application at Cornell — including the use of horizontal mullions and combustible material within 2 inches of the glazing — rather than the generic use of such Tyco sprinklers according to generic specifications.

Mike N. said that the Review Board just wanted to see the NER-516 report. He said that he did not want to engage in further discussion about whether or not the specific Cornell application was compliant (other than by stating that he felt that it was compliant).

In other words, there is not a single piece of documentation in the City of Ithaca Building Department files — in the form of plans, specifications, minutes of meetings, or calculations — that shows how the original drawings submitted for a building permit were revised. Nothing is available for review that might justify (explain) those revisions.

[update 2: Oct. 16, 2013] I received this email from the Ithaca’s Assistant City Attorney on Oct. 15, 2013:

From: FOIL Requests <FOIL@cityofithaca.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Jonathan Ochshorn
Subject: re: FOIL Request for Records

October 15, 2013

Re: FOIL Requests Received in the City Clerk’s  Office on September 24, 2013

Our FOIL Record Nos. 1025, 1026, 1027 & 1046

Dear Mr. Ochshorn:

Please be advised that your FOIL requests wherein you requested “…Submittal to Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Appeal … re: petition 2013-0250… concerning… sprinklers used in fire barrier between Milstein & Sibley Halls…”, “…Document(s) indicating current use and occupancy group… for Crit Room, lower level of Milstein Hall…”, “… Document(s) showing why 1-sided sprinklers…have been approved for the ground floor… between Milstein and Sibley Halls…”, and “…Approved document… showing current exit requirements from the upper level of Milstein Hall…” have been granted to the extent that records exist.

We have been informed by the Building Division that you have reviewed their entire property files and been given any copies you requested.

Sincerely,
Krin Flaherty
Assistant City Attorney

As this email was not quite true in a couple of respects, I replied with the following email:

From: Jonathan Ochshorn
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:16 AM
To: FOIL Requests <FOIL@cityofithaca.org>
Subject: Re: FOIL Request for Records

Hi Krin,

You wrote: “We have been informed by the Building Division that you have reviewed their entire property files and been given any copies you requested.”

This is not true. When I came to the Building Department on Oct. 9, 2013 to meet with Mike Niechwiadowicz (Mike N.) and examine documents related to the four FOIL requests I had submitted, Mike N. produced not a single document*, and claimed that there were, in fact, no documents or records that addressed the four questions I had raised. This is, in itself, shocking, as the questions I raised have to do with fundamental questions of fire safety in the Building Code. Not requiring documentation of such things violates your own requirements: “Permit Rejection: If the information in the application, plans, or specifications is indefinite or incomplete, the Code Enforcement Officer shall decline to issue the permit until the deficiencies have been corrected and re-submitted for review.” (https://www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/departments/ibd/permits/review.cfm)

I must emphasize that the Ithaca Building Department had approved a noncompliant building addition (Milstein Hall), and has continued to permit alterations and changes of occupancy in the combined Rand-Sibley-Milstein Hall without requiring or producing any documentation to justify such alterations and changes, and in complete violation of provisions in the New York State Building Code.

Furthermore, I have not reviewed the entire property file for Milstein-Sibley-Rand Hall, the combined building that includes what were formerly separate buildings (Sibley and Rand Halls). This claim is absolutely false.

*Actually, Mike N. offered me a copy of the publicly available NER-516 report that had been sent to the NYS DCEA per instructions from the Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review’ (Petition No. 2013-0250). I told him that I already had this copy, and asked him why it was not included in the Building Department Files.

Following are my notes from this Oct. 9, 2013 meeting: …
[these notes are reproduced in update 1]

On Sept. 19, 2013, the Capital Region-Syracuse board of Review voted not to re-open the hearing held on July 18, 2013 challenging various Building Code rulings made by the City of Ithaca (see previous Milstein Hall blog posts). I had requested that this hearing be re-opened, and had been prepared to challenge some prior rulings, and to ask for clarification on other rulings. My arguments can be found here.

Charles Bliss, Senior Building Construction Engineer with the Department of State Department of Code Enforcement and Administration, called me on Sept. 19, 2013 and said that (1) Cornell is applying for a Code variance in order to keep the Fine Arts Library on the 3rd floor of Rand Hall; and (2) the Hearing Board was not interested in providing further clarification as to whether Appendix K of the 2002 NYS Building Code permits additions to exceed the allowable areas based on Chapter 5 of the Code, since they felt that Section K902.2 of the Code states clearly that unlimited building area for additions is allowed when they are separated by fire barriers.

Based on this information, I send an email to Charles Bliss (copied to the City of Ithaca and Cornell) asking for formal notification of any such variance or hearing connected with a variance:

From: Jonathan Ochshorn
Date: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:45 AM
To: Charles Bliss
Cc: Mike Niechwiadowicz , Gary Norbert Wilhelm
Subject: Variance for A-3 occupancy in Rand Hall, Cornell, Ithaca, NY

Hi Charles,
In our phone conversation yesterday, you mentioned that Cornell University was seeking a variance in order that the library occupancy on the 3rd floor of Rand Hall at Cornell could remain in place (or even be expanded to the 2nd floor; I’m not clear what this variance requests), in spite of the recent finding by the Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review that placing an A-3 occupancy on the 3rd floor of this Type V-B building violates provisions of the NYS Building Code.

Given that I am the petitioner who appealed the initial code enforcement official’s decision permitting this noncompliant occupancy of Rand Hall, I request to be formally notified of any such variance or appeal by Cornell, or any other party, to overturn or modify this decision, and of any hearing to review such a request.

Because the City of Ithaca initially ruled that the A-3 occupancy was compliant, and because this decision was overturned by the Board of Review, I believe it would be inappropriate for the City of Ithaca to then effectively overturn the Board’s decision by ruling in favor of a variance request without holding a hearing. Instead, any such variance should be submitted to a State board of Review.

Please note that there is no economic burden involved in making the library occupation compliant without a variance: Cornell is already planning extensive renovations of the 3rd floor of Sibley Hall and could provide a fire-resistive rating for the wood-framed exterior walls of the third floor, thereby upgrading the construction type of Sibley-Milstein-Rand Halls from V-B to III-B: this is all that was ever required to make both the Milstein and Rand Hall projects compliant in terms of allowable height and area. Given the $50 million price tag for Milstein Hall, such a small additional expense cannot reasonably be deemed to be a burden.

I also requested a Code Interpretation as to whether Appendix K of the 2002 NYS Building Code permits additions to have unlimited floor area if separated by a fire barrier.

My formal Code Appeal regarding fire-safety violations in Rem Koolhaas/OMA’s Milstein Hall at Cornell University was heard by the Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review on July 18, 2013. I have placed extensive documentation concerning that appeal and the Board’s findings online.

I emailed the administrative representative of the Hearing Board previously to ask about reopening the case, but did not receive any reply.

Therefore, I sent the following email:

From: Jonathan Ochshorn
Date: Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:21 AM
To: Charles Bliss
Subject: Re: Code Appeal – Petition Number 2013-0250

Hi Charlie,

I haven’t received a response to my question to you (see August 6, 2013 email copied below) as to whether I need to make a more formal request for the Board to reopen case number 2013-0250 and reconsider Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7, or whether my prior email is sufficient.

Cornell has already violated the findings of the Board concerning Exhibit 1, by placing an occupancy sign in the Crit Room space for 49 persons (see attached photo). As you know, the Board sustained my claim based on Exhibit 1 that a single exit was noncompliant, and wherein I indicated the possible remedies as follows:

“There are only two remedies for this situation. If one exit is to be maintained, then the floor area of the space must be reduced so that the calculated occupancy, including the occupancy of any accessory spaces that egress through the crit room space, does not exceed 50 [note that the 2010 Code has a maximum occupancy limit of 49; the 2002 Code has a limit of 50]. An alternative remedy would be to add additional, remote, exits from the space, corresponding to the calculated occupancy.

“A third approach—posting a maximum occupancy sign limiting the occupancy to 50 people—is not supported by the Code. While this strategy can be used in existing buildings found to exceed current Code limits (see, for example, Exhibit 7), it is not appropriate for new construction. In new buildings, the number of exits is determined by Section 1003.2.2 (2002 New York State Building Code, Design occupant load), which states: “In determining means of egress requirements, the number of occupants for whom means of egress facilities shall be provided shall be established by the largest number computed  in accordance with Sections 1003.2.2.1 through 1003.2.2.3.” The three occupant load numbers, of which the largest value must be used, are based on 1) actual number of occupants; 2) number per Table 1003.2.2.2 (which contains the various “assembly without fixed seats” values quoted above); and 3) the number by combination (which includes any additional occupants egressing through the space from accessory spaces). Since the values established by Table 1003.2.2.2 are larger than 50, a posted maximum occupant load of 50 cannot be used for this space.”

Cornell has used the “third approach” that is expressly forbidden in Exhibit 1 (and that is expressly forbidden by the 2002 NYS Building Code) by posting an occupancy sign that does not even come close to representing the maximum calculated occupant load for the space. I have already indicated in a prior email (also dated August 6, 2013 and copied below) why it is impermissible to assume a “business” occupant load of 100 square feet per person in a room whose actual use is for exhibition, or classroom, or assembly. This remains a room with close to 5,000 square feet of area and only a single compliant exit.

The occupancy sign shown in the attached photo is dated 7/22/2013 — that is, it was posted in Milstein Hall's Crit Room just four days after the Board reviewed my appeal and sustained Exhibit 1.

Jonathan Ochshorn

The next day, I received this message from Charles Bliss:

From: Charles Bliss
Date: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:19 PM
To: Jonathan Ochshorn
Subject: RE: Code Appeal – Petition Number 2013-0250

I have submitted your request. The board will consider it.

Charles P. Bliss, PE

My formal Code Appeal regarding fire-safety violations in Rem Koolhaas/OMA’s Milstein Hall at Cornell University was heard by the Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review on July 18, 2013. I have placed extensive documentation concerning that appeal and the Board’s findings online.

I’ve requested that the Hearing Board re-examine four of the eight Exhibits that I filed earlier. My rationale is explained in the following emails [with contact information redacted], the first one sent to Charles Bliss, administrative representative of the Hearing Board:

From: Jonathan Ochshorn


Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 3:55 PM

To: Charles Bliss [Administrative representative of the NYS Uniform Fire and Building Code Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review]


Cc: Mike Niechwiadowicz, Lawrence Burns, Ron Flynn, Tom Hoard, Kent Kleinman , Mark Cruvellier, John Siliciano, Gary Wilhelm, Bob Stundtner, Shirley Egan


Subject: Code Appeal – Petition Number 2013-0250

Hi Charlie,

As you know, Cornell presented its “Summary Responses” to my appeal (Number 2013-0250) at the Hearing itself, so that neither the Hearing Board nor myself had a chance to review their material ahead of time. Now that I have had a chance to actually review the handouts provided by Cornell, I would like to make some comments, and point out some problems with the Hearing Board findings that I hope can be resolved.

Regarding Exhibit 1: Cornell provided three “layout” plans for the Milstein Hall crit room showing various arrangements of tables and seats having no correspondence to the reality of the space’s actual or potential occupancy. As you know, Section 1003.2.2 of the Code states that occupancy is determined by the largest number computed in accordance with “actual” plans or “tabular values.” This means that Cornell’s submitted plans, by themselves, have no relevance in determining the required number of exits based on occupancy of the space since the tabulated values in the Code are larger.

Regarding Exhibit 2: While I disagree with the Hearing Board’s interpretation, I respect their judgment, based on the expert advice solicited by Cornell.

Regarding Exhibit 3: Proposal Request No. 129 (included as Attachment No. 3 by Cornell),  which is “stamped and signed by Architect and mechanical Engineer,” does not qualify under the 2002 Code as acceptable documentation proving that the installation of sprinklers satisfies ASTM E 119. Cornell, in its handout to the Hearing Board, states: “The fire-rated windows are installed by the manufacturer and comply with the testing and their installation requirements.” Reading this, one would get the impression that the installed windows are compliant with the requirements of the 2002 Code. Of course, as was admitted in the same handout: “The Architect’s Office made an error in submittal review and changed the rating of the fire-rated window assembly from 1 hour to 3/4 hour.” Therefore, the claim that the windows “comply with the testing and their installation requirements” is only true for a 3/4 hour fire-resistance rating, and not for the required 1 hour rating. That is, the statement is both irrelevant to the issue being contested as well as being misleading, since it implies that the windows are compliant when they are actually noncompliant.

I just spoke with Ken Dias [email address redacted], an Applications Specialist at Tyco (the manufacturer of the sprinkler system), on July 23, 2013. He supported all of my objections to considering the sprinkler installation as satisfying the requirements of NER-516; i.e., he agreed that these openings do not count as 1-hour fire-resistance-rated walls per ASTM E 119. In an email to me dated July 24, 2013, he writes: “You have stated that there is a horizontal mullion projecting more than 5/8″ from the glazing. It is likely that this horizontal mullion would impede the smooth continuous flow of water down the glazing and create unacceptable dry spots. Again, horizontal mullions are not allowed in accordance with the UL Specific Application Listing… You have stated that the wood framing from the original window is less than 2″ from the new glazing. The UL Listing requires that all combustible material must be a minimum 2″ from the face of glazing… Lastly, this installation is quite unique in nature as it encompasses a ‘new’ piece of glazing located off of an existing window, resulting in an ‘enclosed’ area between two pieces of glazing where one of the two WS sprinklers is located within. This arrangement was not considered in the UL testing nor is it addressed within the evaluation service reports. It should be understood that the intent of the WS Window Sprinkler is to realize activation in a timely enough manner to protect the associated glazing. The existence of two panes of glass on either side of the one WS sprinkler will result in the prevention of hot gasses to that sprinkler until such time that the original pane may rupture. Consideration should be given to what will happen to the rupturing pieces or sections of glass. Could large pieces somehow be propped up against the newer pane, causing an obstruction to the smooth flow of water down this pane?”

The Tyco specialist concludes his email as follows: “In conclusion, this installation does not appear to be in compliance with the UL Listing per Tyco data sheet TFP620, ESR-2397 or NER-516″ (emphasis added).

Cornell, in its testimony and handouts, has been extremely misleading, if not outright dishonest, in claiming that the fire barrier satisfies Code requirements. The “signed and sealed” drawings are simply engineering drawings for a sprinkler application, and, as far as I can tell, say nothing at all about satisfying requirements for a 1-hour fire rating, per NER-516 or ASTM E 119. The claim that the horizontal mullion is compliant because it is only a “muntin” seems to be a complete fabrication, with no basis in any documentation. This claim is explicitly contradicted by the technical specialist at Tyco, the manufacturer of the sprinklers. Cornell’s claim in their handout that the “fire-rated windows are installed by the manufacturer and comply with the testing and their installation requirements” is absolutely misleading and disingenuous, as these windows only provide a 3/4-hour fire-resistive rating rather than the required 1-hour rating.

The fire-barrier is also problematic in that only one-sided sprinklers were apparently installed on the basement and first-floor levels, based on requirements for exterior wall protection, rather than for fire barrier separation requirements. Yes, these are “exterior walls,” but the protection needed is not exterior wall protection; rather, since the exterior spaces under Milstein Hall count as building area, the required protection is for fire barriers, and the sprinkler installation should have been two-sided.

Regarding Exhibit 4: I disagree with the Hearing Board’s findings, but respect their determination that the lobby/bridge constitutes a mezzanine within the crit space.

Regarding Exhibit 5: As far as I can tell, the only thing upheld by the Hearing Board in its ruling on Exhibit 5 is that a fire barrier under Appendix K does allow an addition to increase the area of an existing building beyond that permitted by Chapter 5 of the Code. However, the Hearing Board, in their findings, agreed with me that the entire building consisting of Sibley, Milstein, and Rand Halls counts as Type V-B construction, based on the construction type of Sibley Hall.

The question remains as to what limits should constrain the area of such an addition. Lawrence Burns of KHA Architects answers this question in his letter reproduced as Attachment No. 4: “We believe that the requirements of nonseparated uses applies [sic] to each portion of the building and do not restrict the areas of the entire building” (emphasis added). Cornell, in their handout to the Board, makes the same point. In other words, Milstein Hall’s per-floor area, taken by itself, must still meet the requirements for nonseparated uses in the 2002 Building Code.

Therefore, even though the Board upheld the City of Ithaca Code Officials’ determination (agreeing with the City that an addition can increase the area of an existing building if separated by a fire barrier), the Board disagreed with the contention made by Cornell and the City of Ithaca that fire barriers used under Appendix K allow each fire area to be designed according to its own construction type. By insisting that the entire building be designed with construction type V-B, the Board ruling effectively establishes that Milstein Hall, all by itself, must not exceed per-floor area limits of the Code. Since Milstein Hall — considered by itself without the added area of Sibley or Rand Halls — still exceeds those area limits, it is clearly noncompliant. This is because Chapter 5 of the Code sets a per-floor area limit for nonseparated B/A-3 occupancies with Type V-B construction of 6000 square feet, which can be increased to no more than 22,500 square feet when sprinklers and the maximum possible frontage allowances are factored in. Because Milstein Hall has floor area of 25,600 square feet, it exceeds this limit and is therefore noncompliant.

Regarding Exhibit 6: Cornell has recently posted an occupancy sign in Milstein Hall’s upper level with a 530 occupant limit, thereby requiring 3 exits. There are only two compliant exits for this space, and only two exits are shown in the construction documents. The “new” change in occupancy, from “B” to combined “A-3 and B” uses, should have triggered a new building permit application under the 2010 Existing Building Code, as it apparently occurred well after Milstein Hall was completed and after a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. In any case, the new “third” exit is noncompliant for at least two reasons: it has no exit sign, and the stair in Rand Hall to which it leads violates Section K901.2 in the 2002 Code (assuming that the old Code governs), in that the addition (Milstein Hall) extends nonconforming aspects of the existing building (the exit stair).

Regarding Exhibit 7: There are a number of errors in Cornell’s handout and testimony about Room 261 in E. Sibley Hall. First, it is absolutely inappropriate and dangerous to compute the remoteness of exits within a room or area by looking only at the remoteness of exits for the building as a whole. The plan provided in Cornell’s handout shows only the remoteness calculation for E. Sibley Hall as a whole, but not for Room 261.  The idea that this room “is part of a larger space with two remote exits,” and therefore does not need to satisfy exit requirements for its own occupancy, is so completely wrong-headed and dangerous that I find it hard to believe that such statements would be put in writing by both the architect of record and the architect managing the project for Cornell.

Cornell’s plan, provided in the handout, further states that “Door 1, 2, and 3 can be opened into Milstein Hall.” First, this is factually inaccurate, as these doors are almost always locked (they are locked right now as I type this email). Second, having doors that “can be opened” is not a sufficient specification for a legal exit. For one thing, there are no exit signs marking these doors as exits; and there is no special hardware that guarantees that the doors remain unlocked (in fact, as I have just written, the opposite is true). Third, such exits would create new exiting conditions in Milstein Hall that were not part of the permitted set of drawings. A new building permit would be required and new exiting calculations would need to be provided before the doors leading from Room 261 to Milstein Hall can be used as exit doors from Sibley Hall.

Wilhelm’s testimony described the posted occupancies in Room 261 as a relic of the original pre-Milstein era, presumably when the space was occupied by the Fine Arts Library. Wilhelm stated that this posted occupancy was not something newly contrived, but rather a lingering remnant of the old occupancy. But a library stack area has a load factor of 100 square feet per occupant, or only 17 occupants for the entire room. This clearly has no relationship to the posted occupancy of 112 or 240 persons. In fact, the posted occupancy sign in Room 261 was not only recently created, but it was revised at least twice within the past year or so — well after Milstein Hall was completed. 

As it was edited and re-posted after May 9, 2012, it is clearly something done deliberately — well after the certificate of occupancy for Milstein Hall was issued on Feb. 24, 2012. It therefore should have triggered a code review under the Existing Building Code of NYS, since all changes of occupancy — even those within the same A-3 occupancy class — require Code review. Increasing the occupancy of a space from 100 square feet per occupant to 7 square feet per occupant, and thereby increasing the occupant load in the room from 17 to 300 (subsequently changed to 240) clearly is something that the Building Department should have reviewed, especially in a space with only a single legal exit.

Regarding Exhibit 8: I have already discussed the flaws in the so-called analysis provided by the architects of record for the move of the Fine Arts Library into Rand Hall’s third floor. One new claim, however, needs to be rebutted: Cornell’s handout to the Hearing Board [page eight] states that the floor-ceiling assembly separating the floors of Rand Hall is “a reinforced concrete which is accepted as an archaic 1-hour assembly.” In fact, the floor structure of Rand Hall consists of steel girders and beams which have no fire-resistive rating, as their bottom flanges are exposed and have no fire-proofing. Reinforced concrete slabs are supported by these steel beams, but in no way provide a 1-hour fire-rated separation, “archaic” or not.

I hope that the Hearing Board can re-visit these issues, based on the fact that Cornell provided inaccurate or misleading testimony in a number of instances, and provided no opportunity for these claims to [be] reviewed before the Hearing itself. I think it is important to get this right, as the safety of hundreds of students, faculty, and staff is at stake, as is the integrity of the Code process.

Jonathan Ochshorn

I then received a copy of this rather nasty letter (373 KB screen-resolution PDF) from Shirley Egan, Cornell’s Associate University Counsel. Its argument is entirely procedural; there is no attempt to address the actual fire-safety concerns that I raised.

Realizing that Cornell might attempt to keep using the noncompliant Crit Room space with only a single exit, in spite of the Hearing Board’s finding sustaining my argument that multiple exits were required from a room with so many potential occupants, I sent the following, shorter email to Charles Bliss:

From: Jonathan Ochshorn 


Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:58 PM


To: Bliss, Charles [Administrative representative of the NYS Uniform Fire and Building Code Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review]


Cc: Mike Niechwiadowicz, Lawrence Burns, Ron Flynn, Tom Hoard, Kent Kleinman , Mark Cruvellier, John Siliciano, Gary Wilhelm, Bob Stundtner, Shirley Egan


Subject: Re: Code Appeal – Petition Number 2013-0250

Hi Charlie,

Cornell, in its “explanation” about the occupancy of the crit room (Exhibit 1), claims that it can be designed with an occupant load of 100 square feet per occupant, when used as a classroom/critique space Group B occupancy. This is how they arrive at their figure of “49 or fewer persons” and their conclusion that, when used as a classroom/critique space, only one exit is required. 

This is a fundamental misreading of the Code: it confuses the occupancy class (in this case Group “B”) with the actual use of the space. The 2009 IBC Code and Commentary confirms the importance of this distinction: “Table 1004.1.1 [Table 1003.2.2.2 in the 2002 Code] establishes minimum occupant densities based on the function or actual use of the space (not group classification)… While an assumed normal occupancy may be viewed as somewhat less than that determined by the use of the table factors, such a normal occupant load is not necessarily an appropriate design criterion. The greatest hazard to the occupants occurs when an unusually large crowd is present.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the use of 100 square feet per occupant — a number appropriate for actual “business use” — is not appropriate for a classroom/critique space, where the density of occupants is far greater. Whether a value is chosen based on “classroom” use (20 square feet per occupant), unconcentrated assembly use (15 square feet per occupant), or some other rational value, it is clear that far more than 50 people can occupy the space, and that at least two exits are needed, even when the space is configured for critiques.

Jonathan Ochshorn

Charles Bliss then advised me that I could ask the Hearing Board to reopen the case:

From: Charles Bliss [Administrative representative of the NYS Uniform Fire and Building Code Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review]
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:20 PM
To: Jonathan Ochshorn
Cc: Mike Niechwiadowicz, Lawrence Burns, Ron Flynn, Tom Hoard, Kent Kleinman , Mark Cruvellier, John Siliciano, Gary Wilhelm, Bob Stundtner, Shirley Egan, Thomas Romanowski (DOS), Brian Tollisen (DOS)
Subject: RE: Code Appeal – Petition Number 2013-0250

I have not yet had the time to review your documents.  You have the option of asking the Board to reopen the case based upon new information.  That would take place at the next hearing which would probably be in September.  If the Board will not reopen the case, then your next option is to file an Article 78 proceeding against the State.

Charles P. Bliss, PE

I responded with the following email, requesting that the Hearing Board reopen the case:

From: Jonathan Ochshorn
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 5:10 PM
To: Charles Bliss [Administrative representative of the NYS Uniform Fire and Building Code Capital Region-Syracuse Board of Review]
Subject: Re: Code Appeal – Petition Number 2013-0250

Hi Charles,

I would like the Board to reopen case number 2013-0250 and reconsider Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7. Do I need to make a more formal request, or is this email sufficient? 

Even though the Board sustained my argument regarding Exhibit 1, I remain concerned that Cornell appears to believe that the Hearing Board’s ruling supports Cornell’s intention to maintain only a single exit in the “crit room” space, as described in my prior email dated August 6, 2013 [copied above]. I request that the Board examine, and rule on, Cornell’s contention that one exit is sufficient for Group “B” occupancy.

Regarding Exhibits 3 and 7, I believe that Cornell provided misleading and inaccurate handouts and testimony, as described in my prior email dated July 31, 2013 [copied above]. I would like the Board to reconsider their ruling in light of new evidence concerning this misleading testimony.

Regarding Exhibit 5, I request that the Board clarify its ruling. If Sibley-Milstein-Rand Hall is a single building with a V-B construction type, as the Board stated in its findings, then it appears that Milstein Hall, even evaluated under the Board’s reading of Appendix K in the 2002 Code, is noncompliant.

Jonathan Ochshorn

After getting no response for over a year from the NYS Division of Code Enforcement and Administration (DCEA) concerning a complaint that I filed about building code violations in Milstein-Sibley-Rand Halls, I was advised by DCEA officials to file a formal appeal with the regional office of the State DCEA. I submitted this appeal on May 28, 2013.

A summary of these code violations (taken from the appeal document), as well as the appeal document itself, can be found here.

Site Plan showing Milstein-Sibley-Rand Hall (plan by Jonathan Ochshorn based on schematic site plan available on Cornell's Milstein Hall web site superimposed on a Google Map showing the Cornell campus).

Just received this bizarre email notice from Cornell administrators:

For the rest of the semester and until after commencement the Milstein Auditorium will have two rows of the trustee seats up out of the floor. There are 138 seats in the sloped section. If anyone needs more seats we can add up to 40 more in front of the 2 trustee rows. Please note that no one should uncover or sit in the trustee seats for any reason.

Such a crass and obvious expression of our class society — the  surprising thing about it is not that the “trustees” are treated like royalty, but that the Cornell administrators who created this exclusive seating arrangement are apparently oblivious to its meaning.