The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 25, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Sylvester, Pearson, Burlingame, Blackburn, Richard, Jackson, Walker, Jasparro and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Chevalier of the Hope Jackson Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioners Sylvester and Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject facility is a water purification plant which has previously been before it.  At this time, the Applicant is involved in substantial renovations and additions to this facility.  The Board further finds that there is a question as to whether sprinkler coverage should be required over the pool areas of this facility and along the effluent filter pipe gallery which is approximately thirty (30) feet wide and three hundred ninety (390) feet long.  Finally, the Board hereby relies on its original findings of fact in regard to the description of the remaining areas of this complex.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide approved sprinkler coverage in the effluent filter pipe gallery, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Hope Jackson Fire Marshals Office.  Accordingly, if the Hope Jackson Fire Marshal is satisfied with the sprinklering arrangements within this gallery, the Board shall also be satisfied.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant not to provide sprinkler coverage over the pool areas of this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the likelihood of a fire in these areas is remote.

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)].