Hypothetically – if you had a building in your municipality that at one time was required to be sprinklered but is now essentially an empty, vacant building, what would your department require for the owner to decommission the sprinkler system?
By vacant, do you mean gutted to the basic shell or do you mean that they simply stopped using it and left everything as was? If it was gutted under a building permit then I’d agree with the others. BUT, if the building was simply stopped being used, then the sprinklers would have to stay and be maintained.
When considering change-of-use, the most recent occupancy still prevails for determination so that may weigh in on the question.