The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 11, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners OConnell, Preiss, Richard, Jasparro, Filippi and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Charles Lawrence of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a November 29, 2006 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the September 11, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 29, 2006 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
	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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  During the September 11, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this facility is fully sprinklered and that the sprinkler systems activation is monitored through an existing burglar alarm system installed and maintained by Eastern Fire Alarm.  The Board was further advised and finds that the sprinkler system is inspected and that reports are forwarded to the Applicants insurance company every six (6) months.  The Board was further advised and finds that the office in this facility has a direct exit out and that the building is constructed of concrete block and located on a corner.  The Board was further advised and finds that the building meets all explosion proof requirements and that the local fire alarm system would probably not make the building any safer.  Accordingly, the Providence Fire Marshal advised that if the variance was granted he would have no objection.
	In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the above described monitored sprinkler system as a substitute fire protection system for the local fire alarm system identified as item 1 of the November 29, 2006 inspection report.  In granting this relief the Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal presenting this case 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)].