The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 23, 2002 at l:00 p.m. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, Burlingame, Newbrook, and Coutu were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  An initial motion, relating to the standpipe system of this facility was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined in item #l herein.  The motion was unanimous.  The second motion relating to the scope of Formal Interpretation 0l-3 was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to provide the clarification as outlined in item #2 below.  The motion was unanimous.  A third motion, was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to further clarify Board Interpretation 0l-3 as it relates to this building and similarly situated buildings.  This motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

The Board hereby adopts the building description outlined in a February l5, 2002 plan review report of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office as its initial findings of fact.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant has requested a variance in order to eliminate those standpipes, which are technically required under the fire code, but fall within an exception to Section 9l5.7 of the State Building Code.  The Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal have identified those systems, which could be eliminated pursuant to the Building Code exception in the following documents; FS2.l, FS2.2, FS2.3 and FS2.4.  Finally, the Board was advised and finds that the Providence Building Officials Office issued a foundation permit for this project prior to January l, 2002 and at the time of issuance it was understood by all parties that this would be an apartment complex.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant and/or the Providence Fire Marshal may return to the Board as this project progresses to seek additional clarification and/or relief.
	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 defined in Section 23-28.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of RIFPC6-2.l and NFPA l and l4, in order to allow the Applicant to eliminate those standpipes and hose cabinets on either side of the horizontal exit which are reachable with a thirty (30’) hose stream from a one hundred (l00’) foot hose.  Specifically, the Board allows for the Applicant to eliminate those standpipes agreed to by the Fire Marshal and the owner as outlined in FS2.l, FS2.2, FS2.3 and FS2.4.

2.	During the April 23, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board clarified Formal Interpretation 0l-3 as addressing the carbon monoxide detection requirements for one, two and three family homes under that section.

3.	As a further point of clarification, with regard to all sections of the code including carbon monoxide detection systems, any permit  drawn prior to January l, 2002, including foundation permits, shall subject the building owner to those codes that were in effect at the time the permit was drawn.  Specifically, if the foundation permit was drawn for this project prior to January l, 2002, the Applicant would not be required to provide this facility with the carbon monoxide detection systems under the law which became effective January l, 2002.  The carbon monoxide detection system provisions are prospective in nature.

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.

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.  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.  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 changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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.

	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.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)]