The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 4, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Blackburn, Richard, Jasparro, Pearson, Walker, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Gordon Walsh of the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioners Richard and Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Preiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 4, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the subject facility is an historical museum with a stated maximum occupancy of forty (40) people.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the subject facility would fall under a business occupancy.  The Board further finds that the stated total square footage of this facility as certified by the Fire Marshal is 2,128 square feet.  Accordingly, the Board finds that a fire alarm system is not mandated for this facility.  
	During the hearing, the Board was advised that the Applicant had contacted the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office for the purpose of voluntarily providing this facility with a fire alarm system.  However, the Applicant wished to installed this system in accordance with the NEC code as opposed to the Rhode Island wiring requirements.  The basis of the Applicants proposal was to eliminate the fire alarm wiring having to be placed in pipe or as MC cable in the existing wall cavities.  The North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office had no objection to the Applicants request for alternative wiring of this historic facility.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby authorizes the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office to accept the fire alarm system proposed for this facility which would allow for the system to be wired in accordance with the national electric code standards as opposed to the Rhode Island fire alarm code wiring standards.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that this is a voluntarily installed fire alarm system and that the proposed wiring method would be the least intrusive for this historical structure.

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)].