The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 13, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Lutz of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject facility is a four-story existing apartment building which currently maintains sleeping above the third story.  The Board finds that under the original 2003 Fire Code, the Applicant would be required to sprinkler this building in light of the sleeping above the third story.  However, the Board finds that revisions to the Fire Code to become effective in January of 2013 would not mandate this sprinkler coverage.  The Board finds that the Applicant is accordingly asking for relief not to sprinkler this building based upon the new code requirements.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 31.3.5.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant not to provide this limited occupancy apartment house with full sprinkler coverage.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that after a thorough analysis and discussion of this requirement in preparation of a new code, the requirement was dropped.  Accordingly, this building would currently be in compliance on and after January 1, 2013 and therefore is granted a time variance until that time in which not to provide the requested sprinkler coverage.

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)].