Hooper council hears fire department guidance on flag-lot access, hydrants and options for regulation

Deputy Chief David, representing the Hooper fire department, told the Hooper City Council at its Nov. 13 work meeting that the city should rely on the International Fire Code as a baseline for flag-lot safety while balancing homeowners’ costs and city liability.

David said the department favors a maintainable 20-foot-wide access for single-family flag lots, with a surface that supports heavy apparatus and can be cleared of snow. "It's the fire access road," he said, adding the department typically cores and tests surfacing to ensure compaction sufficient to support 75,000 pounds for apparatus.

The fire marshal emphasized hydrant spacing and alternatives. He noted that the IFC appendices use roughly 500-foot hydrant spacing (chapter 5 may allow up to 600 feet in some wording) and said: "I think plugs are going for about 10,000 now," when asked about the cost to extend hydrants. He also told council members that the state imposes limits on what local government may require: "The state explicitly said 2,000 is the max you can require" for certain water-flow requirements, making sprinklers an important mitigation when hydrant distance or supply is constrained.

On road cross-section and turnarounds, David described practical trade-offs: while a fire lane with a hydrant is commonly 26 feet wide to allow hose deployment and passing, the department can accept a 20-foot access with a hydrant cutout for single-family situations. He explained that for drives longer than about 150 feet, an improved turnaround is expected and that the city has latitude to be flexible on single-family approvals if fire apparatus can safely turn.

Councilmembers pressed on liability and maintenance. David said meeting code reduces city liability and that property owners still bear responsibility for keeping private access clear and maintained: if a lane is muddy or uncleared he may be unable to get apparatus through. He described plan review as the mechanism for addressing larger or atypical structures and reiterated that projects going through the city's review system should be routed to the fire department.

Members then debated how to regulate flag lots. Some councilmembers favored handling a small number of existing, unique properties case-by-case (through conditional use permits or variances), while others said a clear ordinance would set consistent standards. Several members asked staff to quantify the number of existing parcels that could qualify and to return with model language and examples (West Haven was cited as an example) and with Public Works and planning involved in the technical review.

The council did not take formal action at the meeting. Members asked staff to schedule a follow-up meeting with Public Works (Jared), planning staff (Nate) and the fire department to gather utility, turnout and ordinance-language input before deciding whether to pursue an ordinance, conditional-use approach or case-by-case process.

What happens next: staff will report back with parcel counts, input from Public Works and planning, and draft language or options for council consideration.