Patrick Cummins

The appellant property owner appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision regarding an Inspection Order that required repairs to a building's fire alarm system.

The appellant did not dispute the required repairs but sought an extension of the compliance date to December 31, 2025, citing delays in obtaining specialized parts and skilled trades.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant made reasonable attempts to comply but determined that a delay to the end of the year would unnecessarily compromise fire safety.

The Commission granted a shorter extension to September 15, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Order confirming an Inspection Order that required fire safety upgrades to a two-unit residential building.

The appellant argued she had complied with the order by evicting the tenant and converting the building back to a single-family dwelling, rendering the Fire Code provisions inapplicable.

The respondent fire service demanded a notarized letter of understanding guaranteeing the building would not be converted back.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant had complied with the order through the conversion and held there was no statutory basis under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to require a notarized letter.

The appellant, a tenant operating a licensed bar, appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order that required the removal of a combustible cotton batten product from the ceiling of the bar's main means of egress.

The appellant argued that applying fire-retardant spray and a plexiglass cover would be sufficient.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the product was a fire hazard and that the appellant failed to prove the fire-retardant spray met the required Fire Code standards.

The Commission confirmed the order to remove the product but extended the compliance date.