Debate Rages on Sprinkler Warrant Article

Salem Fire officials are blasting an article on the March 13 warrant that if passed would end a requirement for sprinkler systems for new single-family, two-family and manufactured homes.

Article 7, if passed, would change a line in the Salem Town Life Safety Code that will say the above dwellings would not need sprinkler systems installed.

Planning Board Chairman Jim Keller also said this would apply to remodeling projects that accounted for or consumed more than 50 percent of a structure under that guideline.

Keller said three years ago the voters of Salem passed the requirement after the National Fire Safety Code was amended for sprinkler requirements. According to Fire Chief Kevin Breen, the vote was 2,159 to 932 for passage.

"What we've come to learn since then is the challenge for homeowners that are renovating is pretty substantial," Keller said.

Keller cited the cost of sprinklers has been prohibitive for many builders that come before his board or voice their concerns to town staff.

"We consider the economic world we live in," Keller said. "Depending on who you talk to it is anywhere from $5,000 to 10,000 per new home for the inclusion of a sprinkler system. Economically, that's a bit of a burden."

The article originated as a citizen petition that was eventually presented by the Planning Board for the warrant after some tweaks.

Planning Board member Ron Belanger said he believes people should have the choice of putting in a sprinkler system in their new or remodeled homes.

He was also worried the cost of the sprinkler requirement "knocks people out of the American Dream of owning a home."

Salem Fire officials see this issue much differently.

"You can't enjoy the American Dream if you aren't safe," Breen said.

Breen and Salem Fire Marshal Jeff Emanuelson expressed adamant opposition to the warrant article when asked about it Tuesday.

Breen said he was "dismayed" at the attempt to change the town's Life Safety Code and cited the overwhelming support of the article from several years ago to implement the requirement.

"This comes from builders, in a self-serving manner, seeking to change the code," said Breen, adding their interest in the matter is "based solely on increased profit."

Emanuelson said Salem has seen a "significant increase" in new home permits in the years since the sprinkler requirement was passed and didn't buy the notion it is hurting the local home market.

Emanuelson was concerned the change to one line of the Life Safety Code did not take into account other areas of the code that will be impacted by the removal of the sprinkler requirement.

"It's not going to be as safe for occupants and won't be as safe for firefighters who may need to go into these buildings," Emanuelson said.

Offering an example, Breen said the adoption of the sprinkler requirement altered what was acceptable for building materials in homes and if the sprinkler language goes away, the building material language is not being addressed.

"They are attempting to cherry-pick out a piece of the code," Breen said. "This is nothing more than politics."

Both Keller and Belanger said homeowners would still be able to add sprinklers to their homes if this passes. They just wouldn't be required to do so.

"I'm one that rarely counteracts the Fire Department," Keller said. "They're trained professionals. But on balance, it seemed like the right thing to do, to eliminate the absolute requirement (for sprinklers). Let the voters decide, which should be the way it is anyway."