Report: Store violated codes
City-funded analysis finds deadly fire was preventable
By David Slade
If building code regulations had been followed at the Sofa Super Store building, nine firefighters would not have died there last summer, a city-funded analysis of the fire has concluded.
"The fire could have been prevented," the report says. "If the property had been constructed and maintained in accordance with state and local codes, the fire would have been quickly controlled. No lives would have been lost, and the fire would have been of little consequence."
Key factors
Key factors identified in the Sofa Super Store fire analysis, relating to the building, are listed in this excerpt from the report:
-- The fire could have been prevented. If the property had been constructed and maintained in accordance with state and local codes, the fire would have been quickly controlled. No lives would have been lost and the fire would have been of little consequence.
-- The fire would not have occurred if the combustible materials had not been stored in proximity to a smoking area or if smoking had been prohibited in that area.
-- The fire would have been quickly controlled with minor damage if a sprinkler system had been installed.
-- A sprinkler system would have been required if the building's owner had obtained permits for the loading dock and other "fill-in" construction projects. (The Building Code would have required the installation of a sprinkler system unless the property could be divided into compartments by a system of fire walls. If the fire walls had been constructed, the fire would likely not have extended beyond the loading dock.)
-- The fire would not have spread to the showroom areas or the warehouse if the loading dock enclosure had not been constructed.
-- The fire would have been less severe if flammable liquids had not been improperly stored in the loading dock.
-- The firefighters might have been able to find their way out of the building if the required exits had been properly maintained.
-- The code violations would have been discovered if the city of Charleston had conducted regular fire inspections and if firefighters had been trained to identify code violations during pre-fire planning visits and report them to the Inspections Department.
Related stories
Report: Fire Department's culture, store's code violations created time bomb
After 11 months, origin of blaze still not known
According to the report, combustible materials were improperly stored where employees were allowed to smoke, a loading dock was enclosed without permits and did not meet code requirements, and some pathways were obstructed, all playing a role in the deadly consequences of the June 18 fire.
The code violations were not discovered because the city last inspected the Sofa Super Store buildings for code requirements in 1998, and later inspections by the Fire Department did not note several structures that the report said were built without permits and compromised fire safety.
Nine city firefighters died battling the blaze. The fire started on the store's loading dock, and the suspected cause was carelessly disposed smoking materials.
Five of the firefighters' families have filed suit against the store's owner, several furniture manufacturers and other companies, alleging the businesses were negligent in the deaths of their loved ones. The city's report could provide them with ammunition.
"It looks to me like the city copied my lawsuit," said attorney Kevin Dean of Motley Rice, after reading the analysis Thursday. Motley Rice is representing three of the families that have sued.
Richard Rosen, an attorney representing the Sofa Super Store, noted that the analysis was commissioned by the city, and said they are reviewing it.
"We have already noted several inaccuracies, including the characterization of the deck, which was not a smoking area," he said, referring to what the city report calls a loading dock.
The fire review team report found that four additions to the Sofa Super Store building were constructed since the late 1990s without permits, and those additions compromised fire safety by eliminating the separation between the buildings.
In addition, the unpermitted construction invalidated a building code provision that allowed the main buildings to be constructed without automatic sprinklers.
"On June 18, 2007, there were no effective fire walls or physical separations to stop a fire that originated in the loading dock area from spreading into the three adjoining areas," the report found.
The report said the fire spread to the Sofa Super Store showroom and warehouse quickly.
"The report points out clearly that if the additions hadn't been constructed, the fire would have been an exterior trash fire," said Charleston Mayor Joe Riley. "Obviously, the burden of responsibility is on the owner when they add on to the building, to ask for a permit."
Laura Cabiness, who oversees building inspection and code enforcement as director of Charleston's Public Service Department, said the city learned of the unpermitted additions while viewing aerial photographs of the property after the fire.
She said that, in keeping with South Carolina building codes, random inspections for code violations were not required by the city since the late 1990s.
"We were still doing large numbers of fire inspections, but we were not doing random inspections," she said. "We did the inspections we were required to do."
She said the city is developing a plan to resume random inspections and to train fire inspectors to look for code violations.
"This is about lessons learned and doing things better in future," Cabiness said. "We have hired a chief fire inspector, which was a position we did not have before, and we are hiring more fire inspectors."
Cabiness said the city did not penalize the Sofa Super Store owners for code violations discovered after the fire. Normally, if a building is constructed without a permit, the city penalizes the owner by charging double the usual permit fee and halting work until a permit is obtained. With the Sofa Super Store buildings destroyed, there are no buildings left to permit.
The Sofa Super Store site in West Ashley has been cleared, and last month the city agreed to buy the land for $1.85 million.
Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
Is there any real surprise that the "look the other way" form of city government doesn't work?
Oh it's fine in Orangeburg or Beaufort, even in Florence small town politics, the good ole' boy slap your back it'll be alright way of thinking, works pretty well.
But, wake up Charleston your a big city these days, and that dog won't hunt!
Let's face it there is a total lack of accountability inside of Charleston city - county government.
While many in Charleston and on this forum called for Chief Thomas and Mayor Riley to step down, their departure will not fix the culture of "not my job" that is so pervasive in Charleston.
It's time to shake up the system and throw the bums out!
Come on' put down the pom poms and get in there with the rest of the varsity.
We need a city - county government that is accountable.
May 16, 2008 at 3:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Cedar
I think joe just does not give a damn about W. Of Ash. Other than the tax revenue that can be collected for his pet projects.
I live a very nice older neighborhood W. Of A. And we have lots code and covenants violations. Take the guy down the street who placed a large boat half way in his front yard and decided to build a temp. structure over it for the repairs of the boat. Near completion of construction, he told me he had changed his mind and it would be permanent. I tried to explain to him that there were problems such as no permit and not in compliance with code and set back requirements. Of course he said that everything was OK. We have code enforcement folks that ride thru this area on a regular basis, and this project was not cited - I think they just don't want to get involved and are just killing time until their next snack break. This light weight boat shed could be a real danger during a major storm - particularly since it does not have a foundation and the required hold down devices/straps.
May 16, 2008 at 6:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
I have to wonder how many other buildings in the area would not pass building and fire code inspections?
May 16, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charles_Town (anonymous) says...
I can see how a place builds additions and not always get caught, especially in this case where the construction was concealed by a large building. You cannot expect the city to know what everyone or business is doing all the time. I say the onus for failing to obtain building permits falls on the owner. The contractors who did the work do share some of the responsibility and that information should at least be made public, even if they are not fined (which they should be) hopefully their reputations will take a good hit. Even though violations on the part of the store was found, that still does not erase the irresponsibility of the person in charge of fighting the fire, and failing to provide adequate leadership to our brave firefighters.
May 16, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
I wonder what large commercial building owners and/or managers are thinking. Here we have a fire dept. that failed and there is no indication that things have changed in the handling of large commercial building fires. Unless the owners/managers are totally out to lunch, they must be concerned with the protection of their property and personnel. And how about the insurance companies that have given CFD high ratings - will that change and will rates go up.
May 16, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MARK (anonymous) says...
LETS TALK BUILDING INSPECTIONS, THE AUTHOR OF THE FIREFIGHTER HOURLY BLOG JAY LOWRY WAS THE FIRE INSPECTOR THAT SIGNED OFF ON THE BUILDING INSPECTION WHICH SHOW UP IN THE ROUTLEY REPORT.
May 16, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JDHawg (anonymous) says...
Me and my family use to shop there back when it use to be the old piggly wiggly before they moved to skylark dr.and that place was a dump back then. they should have bulldozed the building and started over instead of adding on to make the SSS.
May 16, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kiteboarder (anonymous) says...
Remember, the fire started as a small trash fire in the back of a building. The first fire responders had turned away additional fire trucks saying 'they had it under control.'
May 16, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paoa (anonymous) says...
Hey Mark...Jay signed off on it in 1998! Do the math and read what he signed off on. The city discontinued mercantile inspections shortly thereafter! Get your facts strait man !!
May 16, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WardLaFrance (anonymous) says...
Archdud: The city cut a deal with the SSS- you come into the city and we'll find a way around requiring the sprinkler system. Any number of businesses left the St. Andrews district and annexed into the city for that reason. St. Andrews was looking to enforce the codes. It goes right back to land-grabbing Joe Riley. BTW, regardless of how many code violations there might have been, had proper firefighting procedure been followed, had ICS been implemented, had RIT been assigned, had proper radio procedures been used, the odds would have been in favor of those nine men coming out alive. What is the difference between codes not be followed (by a store owner) or procedures not being followed (by a fire chief)? I don't see right in either of those circumstances and think that both sides should be held accountable.
May 16, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
motoflyguy (anonymous) says...
The codes are written to PREVENT and protect loss of life and property and the code is adopted as law. The code officials have a badge and the power to ticket or even arrest those who endanger the public and even themselves
The point being that the code is law and if one violates the code he has broken the law and if yuou break the law and others are harmed then you are liable
The store owner will be the one who gets the blame but the contractor (if he is legit) will also bear the burden of the violation also
May 16, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
Nothing will happen to Mayor Riley. The Sofa Super Store insurance will pay out some money. This case will never go to trial. The case will be history. Hopefully some lessons will be learned.
May 16, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dadsemt (anonymous) says...
According to the State of South Carolina and the Insurance Service Organization Fire Departments are to conduct at least annual fire inspections of all commercial businesses. Looking at this report, the City of Charleston FAILED its Firefighters. How are they getting 1% money if they do not do fire inspections?
First - Annual fire inspections and pre-planning would have noted illegal construction.
Second - Charleston Code Enforcement should have noticed new construction going on in their district.
Third - The store owner should be accountable along with the City of Charleston. 50/50.
Fourth - Chaining of the doors at night after business hours is an accepted practice. Fire inspections and pre-planning the building would have noted this for the Firefighters.
So why did the City of Charleston get 1% of the insurance money when they failed to provide the proper FIRE and LIFE SAFETY inspections?
Thomas is leaving, let's hopes the city impeaches mayor riley and brings the City of Charleston up to the 21st century and out of the 19 century.
The citizens of Charleston should be in an outrage over this, not supporting it.
May 16, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
IMO, the blame should not rest on one, but several~ from what I have read and heard --> the outdated code inspections, SSS for building with lack of permits and the chained doors etc., wasn't there smoking on the premise in a no smoke area, the lack of equipment & training for the fire dept, the people who drove their cars over the fire hoses~ cutting off the water supply, the city who may have not supported/funded the CFD, the list goes on~
May 16, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
This site should have been condemned if the city was adamant nothing should be built there (if ever there was a good argument for "eminent domain"...).
Giving the SSS owner $1.85 million adds insult to injury, especially after reading all the code violations.
May 16, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
aquaticorange (anonymous) says...
you know JohnS, I'm really tired of your sour grapes negativity about change. Until a week ago, none of us thought real change was about to happen... Riley wasn't going to release the report and Rusty was going to stick with incompetent people. But now this has changed, due to ANGER: Charleston demanded to see the report, Rusty was forced to retire, City Council is mad at the mayor over this major fiasco, many in the CFD are stepping down and the Mayor is continuing to hide behind bad excuses.
Sure, settlements might occur, but the people of Charleston want to know that they're not going to die in their own houses should a fire occur due to an inept department and obsolete method of governing a municipality. "King Joe" has been circumventing state laws on how a municipality can be run for far too long, and as the SC Constitution states--the people are the government and as such, have the right to change the government by their will. Joe doesn't rule, Charleston does.
I'm beginning to think, JohnS, that you are either related to the Mayor or to Rusty...
May 16, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- UPDATE: Missing woman's fiance seen leaving scene of burned SUV, carrying a shovel
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- Magnolia Gardens offering free dream wedding to contest winner
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- Ex-Boeing worker claims racism, retaliation in firing
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
- MCDERMOTT COLUMN: Golf business has risks, rewards
