The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 30, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Filippi, Preiss, Blackburn, Jackson, Walker and Richard were present.  Commissioner Jasparro recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the October 30, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board had before it and reviewed a July 24, 2007 plan review report compiled by the State Fire Marshal's office along with a May 14, 2007 support document from FedEx Ground project engineer Philip Simonetti and an August 24, 2007 variance support document prepared by Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the above reports and support documentation 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. 
	Specifically, the Board finds that the Applicant seeks relief from the installation of sprinklers underneath the conveyors within this facility.  The Applicant has further advised the Board that it will maintain the conveyor areas without any combustibles under the conveyors and that there shall be no storage under the conveyors.  The Board further finds that the State Fire Marshal's office has toured comparable facilities to ensure consistent enforcement of the Applicants policies.  
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.3.1.2 in order to allow the Applicant to delete sprinkler coverage under the conveyors within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board directs that all combustibles must be removed from under the conveyors and that there will be no storage under the conveyors at any time.  

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)].