The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 14, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal and Chief of Plans Review Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the February 14, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the subject facility is presently undergoing a voluntary sprinkler upgrade.  The Board was further advised and finds that there are two (2) lower level mechanical rooms where the entire ceilings are obstructed.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant met with the State Fire Marshals Office and the contractor in order to review coverage of these spaces.  The Board was further advised and finds that due to the existing mechanical systems and/or low hanging pipe, the Applicant is encountering many structural issues.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant has proposed the deletion of sprinkler coverage in these limited spaces and the substitution of linear heat detection at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board finds that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection to the proposed plan with the addition of linear heat detection.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to not provide sprinkler coverage in the cited two (2) lower mechanical rooms where the entire ceilings are obstructed.  In granting this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide these rooms with approved linear heat detection, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection.


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)].