The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief Plan Review Officer Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the August 9, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the subject facility is an existing hanger that was designed and built to house un-fueled aircraft.  The Board further finds that the Applicant (Rhode Island Airport Corporation) is in the process of upgrading the subject facility to house fueled aircraft in accordance with the 2011 Edition of NFPA 409.  The Board finds that the Applicant is requesting a variance to operate the existing aircraft hanger without a new trench drainage system. 
	The Board finds that the existing hanger is designed, and shall be utilized, for the storage of aircraft and not for servicing or repairs.  The Board further finds that the existing hanger is currently equipped with two (2) existing floor drains that are piped to a sump pit that gets pumped to an above-slab one thousand (1,000) gallon holding tank located inside the hanger.  The Board also finds that the Applicant shall further comply with the additional proactive measures outlined in the June 9, 2011 correspondence submitted by Jacobs Engineering as part of the application in this case and incorporated herein by reference. 
The Board further notes that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection and that the same variance was granted to the Applicant for its facility located in Quonset. Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct all remaining deficiencies within this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office. 
	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 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of the 2011 Edition of NFPA 409, section 5.11.2.1, in order to allow the Applicant to operate the above-described existing aircraft hanger without a new trench drainage system.  This variance is based upon the Applicants agreement to operate the above facility in accordance with the attached June 9, 2011 plan of action submitted, as part of the application in this case, by Jacobs Engineering.  The attached Jacobs Engineering June 9, 2011 plan of action is hereby incorporated herein by reference.  This variance is further conditioned upon the Applicant correcting all remaining deficiencies at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board notes that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection to the requested relief, based upon the safeguards incorporated herein.

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)].