# RFS required when fire flows are to low



## mtlogcabin (Apr 25, 2012)

[h=1]Judge rules for city in fire-sprinkler suit[/h]


Story

Discussion

Image _(4)_

Judge rules for city in fire-sprinkler suit Emilie Rusch Journal staff Rapid City Journal | Posted: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:30 am | (12) Comments

Font Size: Default font size Larger font size

 

 Bill Huebner is building his dream home on Enchanted Pines Drive and at the same time battling the city over being required to install sprinklers for fire prevention. Huebner is seen here in front of his home on Thursday, March 8, 2012. (Kristina Barker/Journal staff)







 Loading…

[h=3]Related Stories[/h]


Related: Dispute over sprinkler requirement in new home takes owner, city to court

The city of Rapid City did not break state law when it refused to issue a building permit for a new home last year until the owner agreed to install a fire sprinkler system, a judge has ruled.

Seventh Circuit Judge Craig Pfeifle filed his judgment last week in the suit between the city and Bill Huebner over the home that Huebner is building in the Medicine Ridge subdivision in south Rapid City. A trial was held in the case in late March.

In his ruling, Pfeifle said the city’s action did not violate a 2010 state law that bans local governments from passing ordinances that require fire sprinkler systems in single-family dwellings. Huebner had other ways to comply with the International Fire Code if he so chose, he said.

“The IFC as adopted by the city does not require a homeowner building a single family dwelling to install a sprinkler system,” Pfeifle wrote. “If a proposed dwelling of a homeowner such as Huebner is not compliant with the fire flows … the home owner can revise his plans and build a smaller structure, update or expand infrastructure to increase the fire flows to the subdivision, or install a fire sprinkler in the home.”

Huebner sued the city in October 2011, accusing city staff of breaking state law after he was told he could not build a house of the size he was requesting unless he installed fire sprinklers.

But the city argued it was a matter of adequate fire flow and that sprinklers were merely an option that would allow Huebner to build a house bigger than what fire flows in the area could otherwise support. Fire flow is the amount of water available for firefighting above the normal consumption of an area.

The total footprint of the house is just over 5,200 square feet, including a 1,400-square-foot garage, according to Huebner. Fire flows in the neighborhood do not meet IFC rules for any home in excess of 3,600 square feet, the city said.

Huebner, who owns Ace Steel & Recycling in Rapid City, said Tuesday that he does not plan to appeal Pfeifle’s decision.

“I’m disappointed,” Huebner said. “To me, the Legislature has spoken that they do not want in any way, shape or form for people to be forced to put sprinkler systems in.”

For now, though, Huebner said he is just focused on getting the design of the sprinkler system completed so he can move into his new house within the next month. The city will not issue a certificate of occupancy if the sprinklers are not installed.

“I do feel I was coerced. I still feel I’m coerced, but I believe we’re the nation of laws, so I will comply with the law,” Huebner said. “I would like to see the city council take this up and decide if this is the direction we want to go.”

City Attorney Joel Landeen said the ruling just affirms what the city was trying to say all along – requiring a minimum fire flow does not violate state law.

According to fire officials, fire sprinklers reduce the required fire flow by as much as 50 percent by detecting and extinguishing fires before they become catastrophic.

“You have a choice,” Landeen said. “If you choose to build a house that big, you either have to meet the fire flows or the only other way to feasibly build it is put in the fire sprinklers. It may not be much of a choice, but it is a choice.”

Contact Emilie Rusch at 394-8453 or emilie.rusch@rapidcityjournal.com.

Read more: http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/judge-rules-for-city-in-fire-sprinkler-suit/article_f954f320-8909-11e1-904c-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1t4sF7moR

I agree with the judges ruling but VA construction would have given him 8,200 sq ft. I wonder if he was given that option?


----------



## fatboy (Apr 25, 2012)

Interesting, CO had legislation moving through this year that would have prohibited RFS's also. It stalled for this year, but that was my question, the way it was written, it would have precluded existing RFS requirements that had been established for other reasons. What to do?


----------

