The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 10, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss and Newbrook were present.  Commissioners Burlingame and Filippi recused themselves from consideration of this case.  By letter dated May 3, 2005, Deputy State Fire Marshal Pat Cull advised the Board of the State Fire Marshal’s position as to the requested relief.  In the absence of a quorum, a vote was taken on this case as a subcommittee recommendation.  Accordingly, a motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Vice Chairman Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  

The matter was submitted to the full Board on May 17, 2005.  At that time, a motion was made by Vice Chairman Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous and the subcommittee decision was upheld.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During the May 10, 2005 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the existing building has a four-zone dry sprinkler system and that the new structures also have new dry zone for each floor.  The Board further finds that the way this system is currently designed would only give the fire department a floor indication and not a building indication of trouble.  The Board was further advised that the owner has agreed to bring this issue into compliance by adding four (4) dry valves and the sprinkler contractor has notified the State Fire Marshal that the work is scheduled to start immediately.  In light of the seasonal nature of this occupancy and the transportation issues to Block Island, the Applicant has requested time in order to provide the requested sprinkler modifications to his system.  The Applicant is further requesting that the State Fire Marshal’s office be granted the authority to grant temporary certificates of occupancy to allow occupancy on a unit-by-unit basis prior to the overall completion of the sprinkler upgrade. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to provide this facility with all of the sprinkler modifications deemed necessary by the State Fire Marshal’s office as outlined above.
	
2.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants the State Fire Marshal’s office the authority to immediately grant temporary certificates of occupancy, on a unit-by-unit basis, as long as all remaining fire protection systems have been provided.  The State Fire Marshal’s office will retain the ability to either approve or disapprove the temporary unit-by-unit occupancy of this facility until a final certificate of occupancy is issued.  

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)].