The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 19, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Preiss, Blackburn, Walker, Jasparro, Dias and Filippi 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 Jackson and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the August 19, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant is in the process of planning the construction of a new Rhode Island State Police building.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant has proposed the installation of a standpipe system to meet certain building code requirements.  However, under the RI Fire Safety Code, the Board was advised and finds that the standpipe is not required for this facility.  The Board further finds that the proposed standpipe system would not meet the requirements of NFPA 14, 2003 edition which currently requires 100 psi at the top of the standpipe system.  The Board notes that prior to 2003, the standpipe provisions of NFPA 14 only required 65 psi for a new standpipe system.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant is unable to provide 100 psi but could provide 65 psi and is requesting a variance in light of the above factors.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 14, 2003 edition section 7.8.1.1 in order to reduce the required psi at the topmost outlet of the standpipe system from 100 psi to 65 psi and to install the standpipe system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that this standpipe system is not actually required under the state fire code and that the State Fire Marshal's office has no objection.

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)].