The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Jasparro, Jackson and Burlingame were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Oscar Elmasian and Robert Powers of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro determining that the question presented was a non-issue and allowing the East Providence Fire Department to make this determination.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	Based upon the correspondence submitted and the testimony taken during the July 10, 2012 hearing, it is the understanding of the Board that the East Providence Fire Marshals Office was approached by the Applicant to make alterations to the existing fire alarm system.  Specifically, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant was requesting permission to disable the hydrogen detection in the processing equipment area of the building due to false alarms.  The Applicant provided the East Providence Fire Marshals Office with a proposal.  However, the parties determined that they may need to have this proposal reviewed by the Board.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code 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 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 has determined that the question presented is a non-issue and does not require Board approval.  Specifically, the hydrogen detection unit is not mandated to be attached to the fire alarm system and therefore the East Providence Fire Marshals Office is free to make its own determination as to how the system shall be interconnected.

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)].