Rockfield Foundation, town spar over fire‑sprinkler requirement as renovation continues

Bel Air — Leaders of the Rockfield Foundation told the Board of Town Commissioners on Jan. 28 that a change in Harford County’s interpretation of the building code has forced them to address a required sprinkler system for the historic Rockfield building even though the current construction project was not the original trigger.

"The cause for the sprinkler system is the second floor," Donna Dickey, a Rockfield board member, told commissioners, saying the foundation’s permit was denied in August because the county had no plan for sprinklers. "Even if we halted our progress with the addition . . . we would still have to upgrade the building to standard code. They're assuming that that second floor is used as event space, which, it's not."

Rockfield executive Kelly Kaltoff said the foundation prioritized safety and had hired a fire prevention engineer, Jeff McBride, to advise on options that balance life‑safety, the building’s historic fabric and public cost. "At the end of the day, the town owns this building. If the town wants to put sprinklers in here, it's your building. You have every right to do so. And Rockfield will fund as we agree to the other 50% of it," Kaltoff said.

Todd Morrison of CASCON Construction, the contractor on the site, said core structural work is underway — demolition, slab, steel and wood framing — and the contractor’s schedule expects completion in early May "but it has to be with the cooperation of the sprinkler system installation as well, which seems to be an unknown. So that's sort of an issue right now."

Paul Thompson, president of Architectural Design Works (ADW), which prepared the plans, told the board that interpretations of code sometimes vary by plans reviewer. "Codes are subject to interpretations," he said. He said his firm and Rockfield’s consultant disagree with the county reviewer’s classification of the second floor as an assembly space and believe it qualifies as office space. "We don't believe that the second floor is assembly. We believe it's office so it's an unseparated mixed use. They're saying that it's a non‑compliant condition."

Commissioners and staff discussed options including accepting the county’s interpretation, seeking an alternative interpretation, or having the town consider a retrofit. Commissioner comments emphasized the need for cost estimates before any town contribution and expressed appreciation for the foundation’s stewardship of the site. Commissioner Rutledge noted that the board had previously authorized a $47,000 expenditure to get estimates and said he wanted the "bottom line" before authorizing any additional town funds.

Rockfield representatives reiterated they had engaged a fire‑safety expert because of the complexity of historic construction and code compliance, and emphasized they were not resisting necessary safety upgrades. Kaltoff said the foundation has been covering many maintenance costs historically and planned to continue collaborating with the town. "Public safety at Rockfield is always on our top priority," she said.

No formal board vote was taken at the Jan. 28 work session. Commissioners asked staff to return with cost estimates and further technical information so they could determine next steps and whether the town would share retrofit costs.

Ending: The board did not adopt a final position; commissioners asked staff and Rockfield to provide firm cost estimates, permitting guidance and an updated construction schedule for a future meeting so the town could weigh any contribution and integration of a sprinkler installation into ongoing construction.