By TAMMIE TOLER
PRINCETON — Douglas Sporting Goods’ owner has served notice that he wants another review.
In a letter dated Jan. 26, Marlin Douglas alerted Princeton City Council’s Public Safety Committee that he was seeking another review and appeal of the closure order issued by Princeton Fire Department in December 2009.
At that time, PFD authorities cited a long list of electrical problems, the absence of panic bars on exits and a fire alarm system that was not in compliance with the city and state code requirements. Douglas later appealed the closure order to the Public Safety Committee, asking city leaders to overturn the order and allow him to operate his Brick Street business in order to raise the revenue to purchase and install the required alarm system he estimated would cost $8,000.
In January, the Public Safety Committee opted to let the order stand, citing the panel’s responsibility to operate within the city code and do everything within power to protect residents and visitors to Princeton.
In his notice of review and appeal, Douglas argued first that his business structure should be “grandfathered” into compliance with existing fire codes.
“When the business premise of Douglas Sporting Goods was constructed in 1971, the State Fire Code did not exist. Therefore, the condition of that business premise is ‘grandfathered,’” Douglas wrote. “Since construction of the premises, there have been no major alterations or repairs since adoption of the State Fire Code. The grandfather provisions of subsection 1 applies, and the Princeton Fire Department has no grounds to close the premises.”
Douglas also wrote that the property is in no way a fire hazard to nearby persons or property due to risk of explosion, condition of the structure or storage of combustible materials.
“In the thirty-six years that Douglas Sporting Goods has occupied its business premises, the Princeton Fire Department has never responded to a fire alarm at Douglas Sporting Goods premises, with one exception,” Douglas wrote.
That occasion was on Dec. 15, 2009, when the fire alarm system was tested, Douglas said.
In addition to his argument that PFD wasn’t authorized to close his store, Douglas claimed that all 81 of the electrical violations listed in an April 2009 examination have been corrected, that a functional fire alarm system is in place, that smoke detectors have been installed, and that there are three exits with panic bar equipment installed at Douglas Sporting Goods.
“Douglas Sporting Goods, Inc., has done everything in its power, considering its dire financial circumstances, to remedy the alleged violations in its store premises. If allowed to re-open, it will hopefully obtain sufficient additional funds to allow for the purchase of a fire alarm system designated by the State Fire Code,” Douglas wrote.
Wednesday, Princeton City Manager Wayne Shumate advised committee members that Douglas had asked for a review by the committee and might address the full City Council Monday. However, if Douglas believes the necessary corrections have indeed been made, Shumate said the closure order could be withdrawn at any time a city fire code inspector found it code-compliant.
Shumate also distributed a packet of minutes from a June 21, 1994, Princeton City Council meeting, where citizens and property owners were questioning the authority of code and fire inspectors.
“It’s kind of deja vu of what we’ve been having,” he told committee members.
Shumate said the committee and inspectors face a nearly impossible task in situations such as the one with Douglas Sporting Goods.
“You want, for sure, every business to be open and operating, but you also want them to be safe and secure,” he said.
— Contact Tammie Toler at ttoler@ptonline.net.
