The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 25, 2000 at 1:30 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Fang, Coutu, Burlingame, Filippi, Evans and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael Carey of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

TRAVEL  AND  FINDINGS  OF  FACT

The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a November 3, 1999 inspection report complied by the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office as amended on January 27, 2000.  The above amended inspection report was first reviewed by the Board, the Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the original May 16, 2000 hearing on this matter. At that time, the Board voted to continue this case for approximately thirty (30) days to allow the Applicant to develop a plan of action, addressing the fire alarm deficiencies of the amended report, with the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office. The matter was thereupon scheduled to be re-heard on June 13, 2000.
	
Prior to the June 13, 2000 hearing, the parties requested that the matter be rescheduled for an additional two (2) weeks.  Accordingly, the matter was rescheduled for hearing on June 27, 2000. Prior to the June 27, 2000 hearing, the Applicant's new attorney advised the Board that he was recently made aware of this case and that he desired a continuance in order to prepare.  Accordingly, the Board postponed this case for an additional four (4) weeks and rescheduled this matter for hearing July 25, 2000.

During the July 25, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board, the Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshal's office utilized the November 3, 1999 inspection report as amended on January 27, 2000.  

Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the amended November 3, 1999 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 

It is the further understanding and finding of the Board that this is a six building apartment complex.  Each building within the complex maintains 24 apartment units.  It is the further understanding and finding of the Board that there are no approved firewall divisions within the apartment buildings of this complex. The apartment doors, within the complex, are of metal construction but unlabeled. The walls appear to be constructed of at least 5/8 inch sheetrock. It was the determination of East Providence Fire Marshal's office that the egress system of this facility was approximately one hour fire rated. Accordingly, the Board finds that the egress system of this facility is approximately one hour fire rated.

The original four (4) deficiencies, cited in the November 3, 1999 inspection report, appear to be minor issues involving maintenance. However, on January 27, 2000, the East Providence Fire Marshal amended the original report with a fifth item addressing the fire alarm system of this facility.  Specifically, the East Providence Fire Marshal requested that the Applicant provide the buildings of this complex with six (6) new municipally connected fire alarm systems.  The above municipally connected fire alarm systems were to be installed in accordance with current fire alarm requirements. The basis of the East Providence Fire Marshal's request is the Applicant's failure to comply with the provisions of Rhode Island General Law section 23-28.1-8. 

It is the understanding of the Board that all other four code deficiencies within this complex have been corrected by the Applicant.  Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term “approved”, as used herein, is defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

During the July 25, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the fire alarm system within this facility was a compliance with the minimum standards of the grandfathered version of Rhode Island General Law section 23-28.16-16.  However, the Board was further advised that the fire alarm system within this facility was not municipally connected as required by the grandfathered version of Rhode Island General Law 23-28.1-8.  Specifically, there was no fire alarm box within any of these buildings, or within fifty feet of the main exit of any of these buildings, which provided a direct connection to the local fire department fire alarm system.  The above assertions were uncontested. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that the fire alarm system within this facility was in compliance with the original version of section 23-28.16-16 but not in compliance with the original version of section 23-28.1-8.

VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency one by properly maintaining the cited self-closures within this facility.

2. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency two by sealing off the cited vertical opening, above the storage room, at the direction and to the satisfaction of these East Providence Marshal's Office.

3. Is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency three by updating the cited fire extinguisher in the storage room of this facility.

4.(a)(b)  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 4(a) and 4(b) by properly maintaining the emergency lights within this facility.

5. During the July 25, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Applicant's representative advised the Board that bringing these facilities into full compliance with the present fire alarm provisions of the code, as requested by the East Providence Fire Marshal, could cost well over a quarter million dollars.  The East Providence Fire Marshal's Office pointed out that the systems in this complex were very old, lacked smoke detection and should be municipally connected to assure life safety. The East Providence Fire Marshal recommended that the Applicant should only be granted a time variance of approximately twenty-eight (28) months to bring the alarm system in each building into full compliance with the current fire code. 

As a compromise, the Applicant proposed retaining the existing alarm systems and providing a single, municipally connected master box to serve the entire complex. The Applicant further proposed the installation of a strobe light on each building. Finally, the Applicant advised the Board that he would continue to have this facility privately monitored by his burglar/fire alarm company.

As indicated above, the Board found that the fire alarm systems within this complex were not in full compliance with the fire alarm requirements of the 1968 fire codes which cover this complex. Specifically, the Applicant was not in compliance with the municipal connection requirements of Rhode Island General Law section 23-28.1-8. However, the Board further found that the fire alarm systems in this complex are otherwise in compliance with the provisions of Rhode Island General Law section 23-28.16-16 and have been inspected and approved as such since their initial installation. Accordingly, the Board has determined that the Applicant should not be required to completely upgrade each fire alarm system within this complex to the latest fire alarm standards.  However, the Board has further determined that each fire alarm system within this complex should have been provided with approved municipal connection.

Upon review of the Applicant’s plan of action for this facility, the Board notes that the occupants of this facility would be better served by a system of interconnected smoke detectors in the common areas rather than the proposed installation of strobe lights on each building. When these buildings were first erected, the current smoke detector technology did not exist. The original required alarm systems had heat detectors but not smoke detectors. Smoke detection provides almost immediate notification that a fire is has begun. By contrast, a fire would have to be far more advanced to raise the air temperature to the point of activation of a heat detector. 

The fire marshal’s report indicates that some these units do not even have single station battery smoke detectors. But assuming they did, the battery smoke detector units alone can not be relied upon to immediately notify the other twenty-three (23) families residing in the building, or the remaining one hundred twenty (120) families in this complex, or summon the fire department. Alone, they are simply not adequate protection for the people residing in a complex of this size. It is the determination of the Board that the battery smoke detectors in the apartment units should be supplemented by interconnected, hardwired smoke detectors covering the common use areas and tied to the fire alarm system.  

With regard to the Applicant's request to install a single radio box, the Board notes that the above additional smoke detection would substantially reduce the fire departments notification and, accordingly, response time.  Accordingly, the Board finds that installation of new interconnected smoke detectors, in the common areas of the buildings within this complex, would justify the Applicant's request to install a single municipally-connected master radio box instead of purchasing and installing six separate master radio boxes.   
	
In addressing the January 27, 2000 amendment to the November 3, 1999 inspection report, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of the 1968 version of Rhode Island General Law section 23-28.1-8 in order to allow the Applicant to provide each building of this complex with a subpanel connected to a single approved radio master box, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the common areas of each building of this complex with approved interconnected smoke detector coverage, and connect those new smoke detectors to the local alarm systems within these buildings, at the direction to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office.  Finally, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of one year and six months from the date of this decision in order to bring this facility into full compliance with the above plan of action.
	
After careful consideration, it is the opinion of the Fire Board that the above plan of action shall provide a basic level of fire safety for the families in this complex at a huge savings in comparison to the original proposed installation of six new separate municipally connected fire alarm systems. While neither the Applicant nor the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office may be fully satisfied with the above plan, it does address all of the concerns raised by both parties and provides a substantial improvement in life safety for the occupants in this complex. The Board appreciates the input of the East Providence Fire Marshal, the Applicant and his Attorney in providing us with a basis for the development of this plan. 
	  	  
STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	
This Decision represents a comprehensive, integrated plan of fire safety for the above-captioned facility under the above-cited use or occupancy.  Accordingly, every variance granted is conditioned upon the Applicant’s timely and continued compliance with all of the directives of the Board. Every variance granted is further conditioned upon the continued use or occupancy of this facility under the above-cited classification reviewed by the Board. (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-17).
	
Failure of the Applicant to initially comply with the full Decision of the Board, within the stated time frame, shall void all variances granted herein. (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18).  In the event of complete, timely and continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above cited variances shall be deemed to have vested in the above-captioned facility.  As long as this facility is in continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above-cited variances shall remain with this facility in the absence of any change in use or occupancy mandating review under a separate classification of the Fire Code or a revision of the above-cited classification. (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-19).  

Such changes in use or occupancy of this facility, or failure to continually comply with the Board’s Decision shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such change creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.1-6, all variances granted under the original use or occupancy are void and this facility shall be reviewed under the newly created use or occupancy. (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).
	
The Applicant may appeal the Board’s 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)].