The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 7, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Pearson, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Richard Soucey and Claude Laflamme of the Cumberland Hill Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds that the Applicant installed a new fire alarm system in this facility in March of 2003.  The Board further finds that this facility is a six-story apartment utilized primarily as housing for the elderly.  The Board further finds that on April 24, 2003 the Cumberland Hill Fire Department observed a sound level test at this facility.  The Board further finds that the Cumberland Hill Fire Department concluded that the sound level test did not meet the threshold standards of the State Fire Code.

Specifically, four tests were conducted by the fire alarm company in the presence of the Fire Marshal.  All of these tests were conducted on the second floor of this facility.  Two of the four tests, or fifty percent, failed.  The threshold standard utilized in testing is Rhode Island General Law Section 23-28.25-5(c).  This standard specifically requires that in bedroom areas, alarm sounding levels must be at least 15 decibels above the ambient room noise levels of approximately 55 decibels.  The general law further directs that mini-horns shall be installed in all sleeping areas if proper sound levels cannot be obtained.

With regard to the first test, located just outside the elevator, there was an ambient noise level of approximately 50 decibels.  When the alarm activated, the door located between the test device and the alarm horn closed.  A decibel level of 75 decibels was indicated.  Accordingly, the Applicant passed the first test.

The Board finds that the second test was located outside of apartment #207.  At that time the ambient noise level was approximately 52 decibels.  When the alarm activated, a decibel level of 87 decibels was indicated.  Accordingly, the Applicant passed the second test.

A third test was located inside the most distant bedroom of apartment #213.  At that time an ambient noise level of 53 decibels was observed by the Fire Marshal.  When the alarm activated, a decibel level of 56 was indicated.  The Fire Marshal noted that this was a violation of the RI Fire Code.  

A fourth test was located in the living room of apartment #213 just inside the entrance door.  The Fire Marshal observed an ambient noise level of 50 decibels.  When the alarm was activated, a decibel level of 58 was indicated.  The Board finds that this was also a violation of the State Fire Code.  Finally, the Board finds that the decibel requirements of the RI General Law are reasonable and calculated to alert the general population.  The Board notes that the Applicant is not being required to increase the decibel level beyond those levels calculated to notify the general population.  This is in spite of the fact that potentially a housing complex serving an elderly population may have a larger population of hard of hearing people than the general public.  Again, the Cumberland Hill Fire Marshal’s office is only requiring the Applicant to adhere to standards for the general population and not a special population.

It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility 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 AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  In light of the test results of the Applicant’s alarm contractor as witnessed by the Cumberland Hill Fire Marshal’s office, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance from the provisions of section 23-28.25-5(c) in order to allow the Applicant to bring the fire alarm system of this facility into compliance with the above section.  Specifically, the Applicant shall be allowed a period of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to bring the fire alarm system of this facility into full compliance with the above section.
	
Upon the successful completion of the Applicant’s upgrading of the fire alarm system, within the above time period, the Board hereby relieves the Applicant of the $500 a day penalties attached for each day of non-compliance with the code.

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)].