The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 21, 2011 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Burlingame, Sylvester, Jasparro and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Peter Marietti of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a January 5, 2011 inspection report compiled by the Warwick Fire Marshals Office. The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Warwick Fire Marshals Office during the June 21, 2011 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the January 5, 2011 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 

Based upon the documentation submitted, and the testimony taken during the June 21, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board further finds that the subject facility is a two (2) story wood frame structure with a brick veneer face. The Board further finds that the building is approximately twelve thousand one hundred ninety-six (12,196) square feet in area. The Board further finds that this building contains twelve (12) apartment units that are apparently divided by two concrete fire barriers into three (3) groups of four (4) apartment units. 
The Board finds that this building was built in 1965. The Board further finds that the building was apparently Grandfathered under the original fire code adopted in 1966 and, as a result, did not require a fire alarm system at that time. The Board further finds that the Comprehensive Fire Safety Act of 2003 eliminated the above Grandfathered status of this building and further subjected it to the then-newly adopted NFPA 101 standards for existing apartment buildings. The Board further finds that section 31.3.4.1.1 of the new fire code states:

Every existing apartment building, other than those meeting 31.3.4.1.2, shall be provided with a fire alarm system in accordance with amended Section 9.6 of this Code and Chapter 13, as amended, of the Rhode Island Uniform Fire Code, except as modified by 31.3.4.2 through 31.3.4.5.2. Any existing apartment building, not previously required to install such alarms, shall have the above alarms installed and approved on or before July 1, 2005.

	The Board further finds that the above twelve (12) unit apartment house did not fall within any exception to the mandatory installation of a fire alarm system. The Board further finds that RIGL 23-28.25-1 also specifically required that this facility be provided  with an approved fire alarm system on or before July 1, 2005. The Board finds that, at the time of the January 5, 2011 inspection, the subject facility had apparently not been in compliance with the fire alarm provisions of the fire code for approximately five and one half (5  ) years and that the fines for such non-compliance are five hundred (500.00) dollars a day with each day being a separate offense pursuant to RIGL 23-28.3-9. The Board finds that the Warwick Fire Marshals Office is supporting a time variance for the Applicant to comply with the above code. The Board further finds that, implicit in that support, would be a requested waiver of any potentially accumulated statutory fines. 
	The Board finally finds that a typical twelve (12) unit apartment house would be required to install a municipally-connected fire alarm system. However, the Board further finds that with the separation of this building into three sections of four units between fire walls, the Warwick Fire Marshals Office was correct in determining that a Local fire alarm system could be installed instead of the Municipally-Connected fire alarm system. The Board notes that  Local fire alarm systems are required in all apartment occupancies containing four (4) or more apartment units and that thousands of these systems have been installed over the last eight (8) years in buildings that are much smaller than the twelve thousand one hundred ninety-six (12,196) square foot building in this case.   
	The Board notes that the Applicant has cited the cost, calculated by a single electrician, and potential tenant disruption as reasons for not installing the required fire alarm system. However, the Board finds that the above installation estimate may be significantly reduced if the Applicant solicits more than one bid for this work. The Board further finds that alternative approved fire alarm systems, such as wireless systems, have been installed in many apartment and other occupancies with a minimum of tenant disruption. 
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance, of sixty (60) days from the date of this Decision, in which to secure bids and present the Warwick Fire Marshals Office with her plan of action for the correction of Deficiency 1 by the installation of an approved local fire alarm system in this facility. The Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional time variance of one hundred fifty (150) days to implement the above plan of action by installing a local fire alarm system in this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office or its designee. The Board hereby grants the Warwick Fire Marshals Office the authority to extend either or both of the above time lines in light of good faith efforts being demonstrated by the Applicant. The Board notes that the Applicants timely compliance with the above would eliminate the possibility of fines being imposed for the above deficiency pursuant to RIGL 23-28.3-9. 
2.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance, outlined in Item 1 above, to correct Deficiency 2 by upgrading the existing smoke detector system by providing this facility with approved hardwired or wireless smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, as outlined in RILSC Section 31.3.4.5.1 and its referenced standards, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.
3.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, to correct Deficiency 3 by providing this facility with the required fire extinguishers as required pursuant to Section 31.3.5.11, and its referenced standards, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.
4.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance, outlined in Item 1 above, to correct Deficiency 4 by providing the laundry area with either approved separation, or approved suppression, as outlined in RILSC Section 31.3.2.1, and its referenced standards, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.
5.	The Board hereby notes that the initial portion of Deficiency 5, relating to emergency lighting, is moot because the subject facility does not contain more than twelve (12) apartment units. The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance, outlined in Item 1 above, to correct the remainder of Deficiency 5 by providing this facility with approved exit signage as outlined in RILSC Section 31.2.10, and its referenced standards, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.
6 & 7.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance, outlined in Item 1 above, to correct Deficiencies 6 and 7. Specifically, the Applicant is directed to provide the apartment doors, identified in Deficiency 6,  with the approved self-closing and self-latching devices within the above time frame.  The  Applicant is further directed to provide approved signage, indicating that the fire rated basement doors, identified in Deficiency 7, are to be kept closed at all times, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
The Applicant may appeal the Boards Decision, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by commencing an action against the State Fire Marshal in the Sixth division of the District Court.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].