The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 19, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Richard, Preiss, Jasparro, Filippi, Dias and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	By letter dated April 23, 2009, the Board was advised by the State Fire Marshal's office and finds that the federal government recently inspected the Rhode Island Hospital facility with all of its connecting and non-connecting structures.  The Board further finds that the facility was found deficient in the height requirements for existing strobe height in some of the buildings.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant is seeking relief from the provisions of section 13.8.10.5.3 of the RI Uniform Fire Code along with NFPA 72 section 7.5.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited height of the wall mounted appliances within the Rhode Island Hospital campus.  The Board finds that the State Fire Marshal's office has no objection to this request.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Rhode Island Uniform Fire Code section 13.8.10.5.3 and its referenced standards of NFPA 72 section 7.5.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing height of the wall mounted fire alarm appliances throughout the Rhode Island Hospital campus.  In granting this blanket relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshal's office has no objection due to existing conditions and the fact that these appliances were installed in accordance with previous codes.

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 Applicants 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 Boards 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 Boards 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)].