The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 11, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Jackson, Blackburn and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Given of the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Walker 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 June 24, 2011 inspection report compiled by the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office during the October 11, 2011 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 24, 2011 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. 
	The application for this case further disclosed that the Applicant had received a variance on or about November 30, 1995.  Specifically, in file number 950129, the Applicant was granted a variance not to install a fire alarm system in this non-combustible building.  As a condition of the original variance, the Applicant was directed to provide this facility with approved smoke detection.  During the October 11, 2011 hearing, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant is seeking reaffirmation of the original variance.  The Board further finds that the Applicant, as a condition of this reaffirmation, was willing to upgrade any existing smoke detectors that were more than ten (10) years old and to further provide the facility with approved strobe lights tied to the original smoke detection.

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.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby reaffirms its original variance in file number 950129 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the original smoke detection in this non-combustible building in lieu of a local fire alarm system.  As a condition of this reaffirmation, the Board directs the Applicant to replace any smoke detectors that are in excess of ten (10) years old, and to maintain the smoke detection throughout this facility in accordance with its listing.  As a further condition of this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide this facility with approved strobe lights tied to the smoke detector system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by sealing the cited penetrations in the mechanical room wall.
	3.  During the October 11, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that there was a question as to the effective rating of the doors within the exit enclosure of this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days to have his engineer or other qualified professional submit documentation to the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office confirming that the existing egress system doors either maintain the cited rating or are equivalent to the required doors.  In the absence of providing the above equivalency, the Board directs the Applicant to utilize this thirty-day period in order to prepare a plan of action for the replacement of the cited doors.  Finally, the Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in which to replace the cited doors if they are not determined by the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office to have an equivalent rating to the required doors.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 by providing this facility with approved portable fire extinguishers.

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)].