The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 18, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Walker, Filippi, Richard, Jasparro, Dias and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bruce Rice and Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District 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 numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a July 22, 2009 inspection report compiled by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the May 18, 2010 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 22, 2009 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 

Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term approved, as used herein, is understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.
	Pursuant to the documentation submitted by the Applicant, the Board further finds that the subject facility has been within the Applicant's family for approximately one-hundred years.  The Board further finds that the subject facility is on the National Register of Historic Places.  

The Board further finds that the Applicant's facility maintains a sprinkler system.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has submitted a September 19, 1991 letter indicating that the sprinkler system layout is "adequate".  The Board notes that the above engineer's letter does not classify the sprinkler system as complying with the standards of NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R.  

The Board further finds that the subject facility currently maintains sixteen (16) apartment units.  The Board finds that the current requirements for a municipally connected system trigger when an apartment building has eight (8) or more units.  Finally, the Board finds that the new requirements for apartment houses have been in full force and effect for the past seven (7) years and that the grandfather clause, under previous codes, has been eliminated.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1-5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office.
	6.  During the May 18, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had corrected the control panel trouble issue.  However, the Board was advised that by letter dated August 18, 2009, the Town of South Kingstown Communications Department had advised the Applicant that the local fire alarm system of this facility had to be upgraded in order to provide municipal connection in accordance with the code.  The above letter was reviewed by the parties during the hearing and is incorporated herein by reference.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to submit a plan of action for the correction of deficiency 6 by providing the fire alarm system of this facility with approved municipal connection.  The Board further grants the Applicant a time variance of an additional 120 days in which to implement his plan of action for the correction of deficiency 6.  Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office to extend either or both of the above timelines for good faith efforts being shown by the Applicant.  The Board hereby authorizes the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office to return the Applicant to the Board in the event that office determines that the Applicant has not been proceeding in good faith after the above time extensions.
	7.  The Board hereby grants the same time variances outlined in item 6 above in which to provide the apartment units of this facility with approved single station hardwired and/or wireless carbon monoxide and smoke detection units at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal or designee.  In granting this time relief, the Board further notes that the far more limited occupancy of three-family apartments had recently been required to provide hard-wired or wireless smoke and CO detection in each of their apartment units.
	8.  During the May 18, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Applicant advised the Board that he had corrected most of deficiency 8 and that he would bring the facility into full compliance shortly.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 8 within a timetable established by the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office.
	9-10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 9 and 10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District 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)].