David Patterson builds modular homes all over southern Maine. The only client he can remember wanting a sprinkler system was a firefighter.
Everyone else tries to opt out, but many cannot. While the statewide building code exempts new single-family homes from requiring sprinklers, roughly a dozen communities mostly concentrated in Cumberland and York counties go further to mandate them. The last one that Patterson installed added $16,000 to the cost of a $409,000 ranch in Hollis.
“Why is the town forcing me to spend $16,000?” Patterson, the owner of Canbury Homes in Sanford, said. “Why did I lose that choice?”
The state needs to build at least 76,000 homes by 2030 to remedy historic underproduction and meet expected growth. Lawmakers have advanced reforms, including allowing homeowners to build accessory dwelling units on single-family lots. In Hollis and other towns with strict rules, any home adding such a unit needs to cover the entire property with a new sprinkler system.
There are two bills before the Democratic-led Legislature that would eliminate these requirements with an eye toward deregulating builders and lowering costs. Firefighters have emerged as the most vocal opponents of such a change, saying new homes are more prone to destructive fires because they are tighter and better insulated.
“It’s going to take even the best fire department in the world eight minutes before they arrive … and the fire is doubling in size every three minutes,” Roger Hooper, York County’s fire administrator, said.
Firefighters are sympathetic to builder and buyer frustrations over housing costs. Sprinkler systems themselves tended to cost about $6,000 a decade ago, when Maine towns began mandating them, Patterson said. Safety isn’t where the state should cut corners, they argue.
Data from the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition holds that having both sprinklers and smoke alarms reduces the risk of death in a house fire by 82 percent relative to having neither, State Fire Marshal Shawn Esler told lawmakers. Hooper suggests legislators mandate them in every new home, and then reduce permit costs or give tax breaks to homeowners with sprinklers.
Home builders don’t dispute that sprinklers save lives. In the same spirit as local control, they say it should be up to a homeowner what they do with their property. That especially goes for those already on a tight budget trying to stay afloat in a housing crisis.
“When you’re spending anywhere from [$15,000 to $20,000] on a $400,000 home, every dollar is a big deal, especially at today’s rates, today’s land costs, and with all the other mandatory items that have been placed onto new homes,” Elliott Chamberlain, a home builder based in Saco, where sprinklers are mandatory, said. “It’s that straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
Sprinkler costs are prohibitive for those building accessory dwelling units, said Chris Lee, president of construction company Backyard ADUs. ADUs, which are often referred to as in-law apartments, are one of the least expensive housing types to construct. The systems therefore can add almost 10 percent to the cost of building one.
That could be fine for someone looking to rent the new unit. But middle-income families who just want an aging parent or adult child to live closer to home are simply walking away.
One client story that sticks with Lee is of an elderly woman who wanted to move in with her daughter in Saco to help with the grandkids and reduce their housing costs. The city’s sprinkler requirements required a new water line that pushed the family over budget.
“It’s ultimately just pushing it to a higher income family, which is not the goal of ADUs,” Lee said. “Sprinklers hit the missing middle the hardest.”
