The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 10, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jasparro, Blackburn, Filippi and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the Applicant is in the process of constructing a new airport hangar.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has worked closely with the State Fire Marshal's office in addressing all of the concerns that office had with the exception of providing a hangar floor trench for drainage pursuant to NFPA 409 standards. 
	The Board further finds that the original designs of the plumbing system included a series of trench drains in the hangar portion of the building that fed into the sanitary drain through a gas/sand interceptor which then led into the Quonset Industrial Parks wastewater system.  The Board further finds that the Applicant was informed in January of 2008 through coordination with the Quonset Development Corporation representative that such a design into the sanitary system would not be supported by the Quonset Development Corporations wastewater system.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant was requested to seek alternatives.  
	Accordingly, the Applicant is requesting a variance from the Board to construct and operate a new aircraft hangar without the use of trench drains.  The Board further finds that the proposed hangar facility is designed for the storage of aircraft and not light manufacturing or repairs.  The Board further finds that as a storage facility, the typical day-to-day activities of the hangar may produce minor (less than  gallon) oil, fuel, grease discharge and moderate (seasonal) water discharge on the floor on a weekly basis.  The Board further finds that the Applicant shall utilize several proactive measures to ensure safety as outlined in his April 29, 2008 letter to the Board.  Finally, the Board finds that the State Fire Marshal's office is OK with this request.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 409 standards in order to allow the Applicant to construct and operate a new aircraft hangar without the use of trench drains in accordance with the plan of action outlined in the April 29, 2008 letter from EarthTech Architecture.  The Board further directs the Applicant to comply with all EPA regulations for any spill and the Board further directs the Applicant to provide full foam fire suppression for any larger spills.  Finally, the Board directs the Applicant to clean out any spills or discharges at least on a weekly basis, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.

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)].