The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 27, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  
At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Pearson, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Michalczyk of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the March 27, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds through testimony and documentation that the original plans for this building required a pump for the added pressure needed for the sprinkler system.  Subsequently, it was determined by the Providence Fire Marshal's Office that attaching the system to a high pressure line would be far more cost efficient.  However, the Board finds that this did not solve the problem of adequate pressure because at the top of the standpipe the pressure was calculated to be 83 psi as opposed to the currently required 100 psi.  However, the Board further finds that the required 100 psi could easily be achieved with the assistance of a fire department pumper hooked up to the FDC.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Providence Fire Marshal's Office has no objection to the granting of the requested relief.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 14 section 7.8.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the above approximate 83 psi at the top of the standpipe within this facility.  The Board notes that the original psi requirements for standpipes was 60 psi and that the Applicant could easily achieve 100 psi with the assistance of a fire department pumper hooked up to the FDC of this facility.  Accordingly, in the absence of an objection by the Providence Fire Marshal's Office, the above relief is granted.

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)].