The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on March 23, 2010 as part of a consolidated package of cases covering 24 Salt Pond Road.  A decision outlining a plan of action for this case was issued on June 4, 2010.  The Applicants engineer has returned to request a rehearing to allow the file to be reopened for discussion covering the automatic fire sprinkler system installation in Building H.  
The above captioned case was thereupon most recently scheduled for hearing on April 5, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Walker and Dias were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Robert Emmott and Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates its original decision in file number 100039 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, based upon the documentation submitted and the testimony taken during the April 5, 2011 hearing, the Board further finds that Building H is a three-story business occupancy that was constructed with prefabricated wood trusses between floors 1 and 2 and between floors 2 and 3.  The Board further finds that at the time of construction, batt insulation was installed at the bottom of the trusses to provide a sound barrier between floors.  The Board further finds that a suspended ceiling is attached to the bottom of the trusses.  The Board further finds that the installation of the insulation has created two (2) levels of concealed combustible space.  Specifically, there is one space created between the suspended ceiling and the bottom of the trusses and a second concealed space between the bottom of the trusses and the deck above.  The Board further finds that the 2002 edition of NFPA 13 does not address this particular construction arrangement.  However, the Board finds that section 8.15.1.2.16 was added to the 2007 edition of NFPA 13 which did address this construction arrangement.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicants engineer is requesting approval to apply section 8.15.1.2.16 of NFPA 13, 2007 edition to the automatic sprinkler system design for Building H.  
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to apply section 8.15.1.2.16 of NFPA 13, 2007 edition to the automatic fire sprinkler system design for Building H.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Union Fire District 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)].