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, Jackson, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal and Chief Plan Review Officer Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	Based upon the testimony taken and the documentation presented during the August 9, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board finds that the Applicant is requesting a variance from deficiency 11-950-VN for the installation of sprinkler coverage in Dennis J. Roberts Hall, as outlined in the State Fire Marshals Office plan review report dated June 28, 2011.  The Board finds that the areas in question are two (2) vaults on the first floor which the Applicant proposed to omit sprinkler coverage in order to eliminate the possibility of voiding the vault listing.  The Board further finds that the vaults have been given a four-hour fire rating and that they have also been provided with approved heat detection.  In light of the above, the State Fire Marshals Office had no objection to the requested relief. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  (11-950-VN).  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to delete sprinkler protection in the cited two (2) FDIC/fire rated vaults in Roberts Hall.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the installation of sprinkler coverage would void the listing of these vaults.  The Board further notes that the vaults are currently protected with approved heat detection tied into the municipally connected fire alarm system.

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)].