The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 12, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Newbrook, O’Connell, Pearson, Burlingame and Filippi were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office, and by the Chief of Inspections, William Howe, of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

This facility was previously before the Board and a Decision was issued on May 23, 2001.  This facility was also before the Board and variances were granted in File numbers 990292 and 950218.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates its original findings of fact in the above referenced decisions as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The sole current issue before the Board involves sprinkler coverage within the electrical vault.  The owner, the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office, and representatives of the local electrical utility company presented the Board with an approved plan of action during the June 12, 2001 hearing.  The Providence Fire Marshal’s Office considered the plan and time table to be “reasonable”. It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.

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 REQUEST

1. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to complete the sprinkler coverage of this facility, by providing electrical vault with approved sprinkler alternative protection, in accordance with the plans presented during the June 12, 2001 hearing this matter, at the direction to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office, on or before December 31 2001.

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 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. ( 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 Board’s 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 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 [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].