The above-captioned case was originally heard on February 5, 2008 and a decision was rendered in file number 070366.  The Applicant returned to address the issue of the existing sprinkler heads in this facility, on March 11, 2008.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners OConnell, Filippi, Walker, Jasparro, Jackson and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshals James Moore and Bruce Quinn of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro and Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original finds of fact in file number 070366 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board notes that all of the items in this facility have been subjected to a plan of action with the exception of item 17 which is currently before the Board.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
The Board notes that in item 17, the State Fire Marshal's office has indicated that the sprinkler heads in this industrial facility appear to have been in service for more than fifty (50) years and need to be either replaced or have a representative sample tested.  The Board further notes that the Applicant believes that many of the heads in this facility are less than fifty (50) years old.  The Board finds that the Applicant shall work with the State Fire Marshal's office in identifying those heads that need to be replaced and replacing those heads within a one-year period.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal's office to develop a plan of action for the upgrade of the sprinkler heads within this facility and to bring the facility into compliance with the provisions of section 13.3.3 and NFPA 25 section 5.3.1.1 within one (1) year of the date of this hearing.


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)].