The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 22, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Walker, Jasparro, Jackson, Preiss and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Robert Emmott and Chris Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Preiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	By letter dated January 20, 2011, Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Bruce Rice of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office advised the Board and the Board finds that the Ocean Mist Lounge is constructed on pilings located on the ocean front in South Kingstown.  The Board further finds that it is exposed to extreme environmental conditions such as salt water, blowing sand, etc.
	The Board was further advised and finds that the occupancy is protected by an NFPA 13 sprinkler system and a municipally connected fire alarm system and that sprinkler heads are distributed for one hundred percent coverage including the underside of the wooden floor.  The Board finds that the exposed sprinkler heads are the subject of the requested relief for this case.  The Board finds that the heads are often exposed to drifting sand and salt air and this process is rapidly deteriorating the piping.  The Board was further advised and finds that converting the piping to an approved plastic sprinkler piping would not solve the problem of the heads which are continually covered with sand.  The Board was further advised and finds that the sprinkler company has recommended the elimination of sprinkler coverage in this area under the floor.  
Finally, the Board finds that the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office has no objection to the requested relief in light of the fact that the remainder of the building is fully sprinklered and that the alarm system in the building is municipally connected.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to remove the sprinkler coverage from the exposed area on the underside of the wooden floor of this facility.  Accordingly, the Applicant may remove this coverage at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals 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)].