Home sprinklers unlikely in new codes

Bedford County Planning Commission recommended Tuesday night that the county adopt the 2009 edition of the International Building Codes but exempt itself from the portion of the code requiring fire sprinklers for one-family and two-family homes.

The final decision will have to be made by Bedford County Board of Commissioners.

The county, which regulates construction outside city limits, currently follows the 2003 edition of the code, which is published every three years. If any city or county is using a version of the code more than seven years old, the State of Tennessee has the power to come in and impose its own minimum building codes, and its own inspection fees, county zoning enforcer Kay Demonbren said last month.

The 2009 code includes a number of changes as compared to the 2003 edition, and building inspector Ed Antosh reviewed them for planners on Tuesday night. The sprinklers for single-family homes were the most controversial.

"I don't think we're quite ready for that," said planning commission chairman Kennon Threet. Planners said some rural areas don't have sufficient water pressure to operate a fire sprinkler system, meaning that new homes would have to include not only the sprinkler system itself but a water storage tank and pump dedicated to supplying it.

Threet, who also chairs the Bedford County Utility District board of directors, said that if the county were to require fire sprinkler systems on new homes, utility districts would probably be forced to require backflow devices to accompany them.

Antosh said that when all costs are considered, the sprinkler system could add as much as $6,000 to the price of a home.

The City of Shelbyville opted out of the sprinkler system requirements the last time it adopted the code.

Even so, the state is talking about making sprinkler systems mandatory, said some planners last month.

Other changes in the 2009 edition of the code include requiring carbon monoxide alarms, locking caps for air conditioning refrigerant circuits (to prevent abuse of the refrigerant by inhaling it), expansion tanks on hot water heaters, and a permanent certificate showing a building's insulation value.

The code applies to new construction or expansion.

Planning commission members recommended the code, but recommended that the county opt out of the sprinkler system requirement. The code now goes to the county commission's rules and legislative committee, which will meet later this month, and from there it will go to the full county commission.

In other action Tuesday night:

* Planners recommended that the county zoning resolution be amended to include a provision governing homeless shelters. Demonbren said she'd received preliminary inquiries about building a homeless shelter on State Route 64 west of Shelbyville. Currently, there's nothing in the county zoning resolution specifically referring to homeless shelters.

"To be blunt," said Threet, "nobody wants a homeless shelter next to them." Nevertheless, Threet said that such shelters are good and necessary.

Planning commission member Linda Yockey pointed out that it's difficult, from a legal standpoint, for the county to prohibit or control types of development that aren't mentioned in the zoning resolution at all. Once a particular type of facility has been added to the zoning resolution, however, the county can exercise some control over where it can be located.

A proposal was drawn up by state planner Pat Schipani which would require that homeless shelters be located in the C-1 (commercial) zone as a special exception. That would mean anyone who wanted to place a homeless shelter in a location that wasn't already zoned C-1 to go through a two-step process. First, the developer would have to ask for the site to be re-zoned, a decision which would ultimately lie with the county commission. Then, the developer would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to ask for a special exception.

Planners recommended the draft proposal and sent it on to the county commission to be considered.

* Planners recommended a change to the zoning resolution allowing accessory structures to be built before a primary structure has been placed on a lot. Current rules allow only one primary structure per lot -- if a property owner wants to build more than one house on a lot, they must have it divided into separate lots, so that each lot meets the existing size and setback requirements. But accessory buildings -- such as a garage, storage shed or even an apartment for a family member -- are allowed.

The current rules for accessory structures define them in terms of the primary structure on a lot. For example, an accessory structure must be placed behind the primary structure. Because the current rules define an accessory structure in terms of the building next to it, it is currently not allowed for someone with undeveloped property to build a shed or other non-agricultural accessory building if the property owner doesn't have immediate plans to build a house. Planners have recommended a change to the rules so that an accessory building can be placed on undeveloped property.

* Planners recommended a zoning change for 7.6 acres at 3225 U.S. 231 North from A-1 (agriculture) to C-2 (commercial). The site currently houses Smith Equipment and is next door to the construction site for a new Dollar General Store. Although Smith Equipment's primary business of selling farm and lawn equipment is allowed under its current zoning, owner Roger Smith said there is a "gray area" which might prohibit him from selling large trucks, such as at an auction of farm equipment. He said changing the zoning to C-2 would clearly allow the truck sales to take place.

Demonbren said she'd received no calls, letters or e-mails objecting to the proposal, and received an e-mail from the developer of the Dollar General store saying he had no objection to it.

Planners recommended the zoning change and passed it on to the county commission for final approval.