Saratoga Springs Fire Code Violations

[ColinBlair]

There is much problematic and petty in the newly announced lawsuit between Disney and the original contractor on the Saratoga Springs renovation. As an owner at Saratoga Springs, the revelation that the building didn't meet fire codes due to inadequate fire protection between the floors is a big problem. That there was any push back at all from Disney against the contractor on the revelation of the fire code violation feels like a betrayal of their responsibility to us, the owners.

I do wonder who is paying for the fixing the fire code violation. Is that the responsibility of the developer since they were responsible for the original construction of the buildings? Or, are we are the as-is stage of ownership where we are responsible? In which case, how can DVD continue to see new direct ownerships at Saratoga Springs as long as the fire code violations exist?

 

[emilymad]

It is also concerning that they are allowing people to stay in the buildings with the fire code violations.

I feel that Disney should be responsible for the costs to fix it but I have a feeling the owners will get stuck with the bill. I guess our dues will be having a big increase again this year.

 

[New Mouse]

Well its not the first time dvc dvd or whomever you wanna blame has tried to cover things up. This is what happens when profits are put before people/owners.

 

[paults]

I wonder when they were build who might have paid who to approve. Just thinking

 

[crisi]

The contractor also apparently has misogynistic texts sent by Disney employees in response to their concerns. Bad all around.

 

[_auroraborealis_]

I would ask if the fire code was updated between initial build and today. That's not unusual.

When we replaced our old deck, it was to code when built, and out of code at the time of demolishing it. This is common in commercial construction as well.

 

[tjkraz]

I would ask if the fire code was updated between initial build and today. That's not unusual.

When we replaced our old deck, it was to code when built, and out of code at the time of demolishing it. This is common in commercial construction as well.

This is very likely the case. If the problem was pointed out to inspectors during the refurb--and current condition violates building codes circa 2004--they would have been obligated to force closure of all buildings until resolved.

If so, the modifications should be part of the scope of the refurb. It may even be Disney's position that the contractor should have made allowances for this upgrade when bidding on the job. Some portions of this story seem more egregious than others (the alleged harassment) but there are two sides to every story.

(It's also worth noting that SSR was built-up over a period of 6-7 years. Buildings in Congress Park were the oldest. Buildings added later in the process may have been constructed to different standards.)

 

[ColinBlair]

The complaint alleges that this is an existing violation that existed since the building was constructed. We will have to see what Disney's response says, but my fear is that this just gets settled out of court and we never get an answer.

 

[What-r-ya Goofy?]

The Orlando Sentinel reports the code violation as being "the lack of proper fire protection in the cavities between floors" and that "walls would need to be removed" to correct the violations. That sounds like a lack of proper fire stopping in wall cavities such as occurs in plumbing walls where pipes and other mechanical systems penetrate the floors of the building. The fire code requires penetrations of this type to be sealed or "fire stopped" at the floor line as a means to prevent the passage of fire and other products of combustion within the wall cavities of the building.

"Fire stopping" of floor penetrations has been a requirement of the fire code for many years, so I doubt this is an issue of the code changing between the time of the original construction and now. I would think that the liability for this error would be with the original contractor and their insurance company and not something that DVC membership would need to foot the bill for through higher dues. Certainly a question worth asking if DVC attempts to roll this expense onto SSR owners rather that going after the responsible party as they should.

Shame on DVC construction management for trying to cover this up (if that was the case). And where was the building inspector when these building were being built?

 

[What-r-ya Goofy?]

After reading the actual complaint it appears that the code violation was due to the lack of a proper fire rating on the shaft walls that the HVAC duct work is run in. The code allows for open shafts (think of an elevator shaft) to penetrate the floors of a building provided the walls of the shaft are "fire rated" to resist passage and contain fire within the shaft itself.

This provision of the code has also been a standard construction requirement for many years, so it still appears to be an oversight from the original construction that allowed the building to be build in violation of the fire code.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

So many Orange County Code Inspectors from 2004.

 

[The Jackal]

This was posted by Drusba in a separate thread.
You can read the emails and texts in the complaint. While this is one side of the story, I read some of it, I’m not happy with DVC. I think they have some explaining to do.

https://www.****************.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Validus-lawsuit.pdf

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

This was posted by Drusba in a separate thread.
You can read the emails and texts in the complaint. While this is one side of the story, I read some of it, I’m not happy with DVC. I think they have some explaining to do.

https://www.****************.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Validus-lawsuit.pdf

Well that was an interesting read. Makes me wonder about the construction of all the resorts and hotels.

 

[LAX]

Well that was an interesting read. Makes me wonder about the construction of all the resorts and hotels.

I hope not. I can't imagine the costs to bring ALL Disney resorts/hotels up to fire code.

LAX

 

[SL6827]

So will this make the dues at SSR a lot higher?

 

[Sweet T n Me]

We purchased a contract direct from Disney DVC at the park, for SSR, after this fire code issue was brought to the attention of the Disney construction manager. They shouldn't continue to sell a property without disclosure or just say nothing was available at SSR at this time.
Something doesn't seem right. That may be why Disney executed the RoFR for the SSR properties that were mentioned on the last DVC show, by Pete? Just guessing.

 

[The Jackal]

So will this make the dues at SSR a lot higher?

It should be a 1 time fix so, who knows how much they will be raised or how much there is still available in the resort renovation funds. I personally feel that this cost should be absorbed by DVC, they built buildings that were not properly inspected and didn’t meet fire code when built. Not sure if DVC can go after the contractors who built them.

 

[SL6827]

It should be a 1 time fix so, who knows how much they will be raised or how much there is still available in the resort renovation funds. I personally feel that this cost should be absorbed by DVC, they built buildings that were not properly inspected and didn’t meet fire code when built. Not sure if DVC can go after the contractors who built them.

I agree. The owners should not have to pony up for this.

 

[Deb & Bill]

I agree. The owners should not have to pony up for this.

If the original signed drawings were correct, the contractor should pay for any repairs. If the architect was wrong, they need to be responsible. Should have had a Fire Protection Engineer review the drawings as well.

 

[Prince John Robin Hood]

This would make for a good DVC Show topic