Council debates fire-prevention and electrical ordinance changes; asks staff for more data before public hearing

South Burlington city staff presented proposed updates to the city's Fire Prevention and Protection Ordinance and the Electrical Installations Ordinance at the April 22 council meeting; councilors asked for more information and did not send either ordinance immediately to public hearing.

Chris Corbin, deputy fire chief, and John Christman, the incoming fire marshal, outlined six proposed changes to the fire ordinance: extend local jurisdiction to single-family homes (new construction and renovations/additions above $5,000), formalize alarm-system and key-lockbox requirements (including a transition to electronic "e-keys" with a retrofit deadline of December 1, 2026), add requirements covering electric-vehicle charging near unprotected buildings, require protective measures for energy-storage systems (battery walls) and clarify formatting and procedural language. Corbin said, "We're simply bringing to light that there are some hazards that need to be considered," as staff explained the safety rationale for the proposals.

Staff described the EV-charging language as treating an "exposure" as 50 feet from an unprotected occupancy; in short, electric-vehicle charging installations within 50 feet of an unprotected building would need to meet NFPA standards such as compartmentation, noncombustible materials or sprinkler protection. The presentation noted that NFPA codes in Vermont currently are the 2015 editions and the state is expected to adopt the 2021 editions later this year; staff said the proposed local ordinance would adopt the applicable NFPA standards. For energy-storage systems such as Tesla Powerwalls, staff said the ordinance would require either a sprinkler head for the storage location or a one-hour fire-rated enclosure for that compartment; staff noted many new installations are being placed in dedicated, code-compliant rooms but proposed codifying those expectations for both new construction and retrofits.

On the electrical side, Jim Shagdon, the city's electrical inspector, and staff recommended adding single-family homes to local electrical-inspection jurisdiction for new construction and electrical renovations, while offering an owner-occupied exemption for modest replacement work. Shagdon described an owner-occupied approach where a homeowner could perform minor replacements and receive inspection, but work that alters a service or panel would still require a licensed electrician. Staff also proposed removing a prior drafting item that would have allowed up to "five" replacements without a permit; councilors favored simpler language limiting the exemption to replacement of existing fixtures and not permitting new circuits.

Councilors voiced two recurring concerns: (1) potential cost and practical impacts for homeowners who already have EV chargers or battery systems installed through utility or vendor programs, and (2) whether the city should enforce single-family jurisdiction for both ordinances at once or stagger implementation. Councilor Andrew said he wanted more data on the costs and prevalence of retrofit work so the council can assess whether requirements would create unintended barriers to electrification. Deputy Chief Terry Francis and staff offered technical clarifications, including that water-based sprinklers remain the most effective and economical suppression method and that external battery installations are an option to avoid interior retrofits.

A motion to advance the electrical ordinance to a public hearing on May 19, 2025, was moved and seconded but subsequently rescinded; councilors agreed to collect additional comparative data from other jurisdictions and from contractors and return with options. The council asked staff to prepare additional information prior to setting any public hearing and discussed the possibility of holding a joint public hearing on both ordinances in June. No ordinance changes were adopted at the April 22 meeting.

Staff said current permitting fees are based on construction value at about $8.50 per $1,000 and that a residential solar or heat-pump permit typically yields a modest permit fee (approximately $60 in examples provided), but councilors asked staff to provide better cost estimates for typical homeowner retrofits (for example, adding a sprinkler head or a one-hour enclosure near a battery wall). Staff also confirmed the existing MOU with the Vermont Division of Fire Safety (signed June 2013) establishes the local Fire Marshal's Office authority and that only a small number of Vermont municipalities currently enforce single-family jurisdiction locally.