Massachusetts High Court strikes down local law inconsistent with state fire alarm law - May 22, 2012

Massachusetts High Court strikes down local law inconsistent

with state fire alarm law  

May 22, 2012

*******************

Of interest to the alarm industry, but hardly a new precedent setting revelation, Mass's high court stuck down a City fire alarm law that was inconsistent with the state law. The decision is clearly written and I have quoted from several parts that would be of interest to the alarm industry.

" The State Building Code, 780 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 101.00 (2010) (code), permits the installation of any one of four types of approved "fire protective signaling systems and automatic fire detection systems" in buildings throughout the Commonwealth. See 780 Code Mass. Regs. § 907.14.3 (2008). In 2006, the city of Springfield (city) enacted an ordinance that, in essence, proscribes the installation of all but one of the systems allowed by the code. See § 7.13.035 (ordinance) of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Springfield (city ordinances). The question before us is whether the code preempts the ordinance. We hold that it does."

Here are the 4 approved supervised systems:

"All fire protective signaling systems and automatic fire detection systems required by 780 [Code Mass. Regs.] shall be supervised by one of the following methods below:

"1. A UL listed or FM approved Central Station Service in accordance with NFPA 72 as listed [in] 780 [Code Mass. Regs. §§ ] 35.00.

"2.... Approved propriety supervising station system, in accordance with NFPA 72 as listed in 780 [Code Mass. Regs. §§ ] 35.00.

"[3.] Approved remote station fire alarm system supervising station in accordance with NFPA 72 as listed in 780 [Code Mass. Regs. §§ ] 35.00.

"[4.] Alarm signals to an approved Auxiliary Fire Alarm System in accordance with NFPA 72, with supervisory signals supervised by one or two above or at a constantly attended location approved by the local fire department, having personnel on duty trained to recognize the type of signal received and to take prescribed action. This shall be permitted to be a location different from that at which alarm signals are received."

The local city law tried to limit the system to radio only, and this local law was struck:

" Section 7.13.035 (ordinance) of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Springfield (city ordinances) provides:

"A. No Master Box shall be installed in the City of Springfield after the adoption of this ordinance.

"B. Any construction underway before or after the adoption of this ordinance calling for the installation of a Master Box shall instead have a City approved Radio Box installed.

"C. All Master Boxes located in the City of Springfield must be replaced with a City approved Radio Box by December 21, 2008. The owner(s) of the property where the Master Box is located shall be responsible for any and all costs of compliance with this ordinance."

It should come as no surprise that state law supersedes local laws.

" Preemption. Under the Home Rule Amendment, "[a]ny city or town may, by the adoption, amendment, or repeal of local ordinances or by-laws, exercise any power or function which the general court has power to confer upon it, which is not inconsistent with the constitution or laws enacted by the general court...." See G.L. c. 43B, § 13 (Home Rule Procedures Act)."

" In authorizing the development of the code, the Legislature has expressly stated its intention: to ensure "[u]niform standards and requirements for construction and construction materials...." G.L. c. 143, § 95 (a ). The Legislature has also defined explicitly the board's responsibility to "recommend or require tests and approvals and specify criteria and conditions, of materials, devices, and methods of construction," and stated that "[t]he board shall issue certification of such acceptability, which certification shall be binding on all cities and towns "

" If all municipalities in the Commonwealth were allowed to enact similarly restrictive ordinances and bylaws, a patchwork of building regulations would ensue. Other sections of the code also provide alternative means of compliance. Allowing the city's ordinance to stand would permit a similar narrowing of options in such sections, sanctioning the development of different applicable building codes in each of the Commonwealth's 351 cities and towns, precisely the result that promulgation of the code was meant to foreclose."

Note: The case is ST. GEORGE GREEK ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS, INC. vs. FIRE DEPARTMENT OF SPRINGFIELD decided January 6, 2012. - May 4, 2012. I'd like to thank George Condon from Northeast Security Solutions for bringing the case to me attention.

Reminder: For commercial fire jobs use the Fire All in One standard contract.