The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 15, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Jasparro, Jackson, Filippi, Blackburn and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Lutz, Silva and Mills of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioner Richard abstaining.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an October 17, 2008 plan review disapproval report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A second fire alarm plan review disapproval report, dated October 22, 2007 was also submitted.  However, the Board determined that resolution of the issues raised in the first report may possibly resolve the issues raised in the second report.  If not, as noted by Commissioner Preiss, the Applicant may return to the Board. 
The above reports were utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the April 15, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 17 and 22, 2007 reports 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 & 2.	During the April 15, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the sprinkler systems, to be installed within this complex, are NFPA 13R systems.  The Board further finds that once the systems are determined to be compliant NFPA 13R systems by the Providence Fire Marshals Office, there is no requirement that the fire service approve the underground water supply piping that supplies these systems.  The Board finds that approval of the underground water supply piping, in the above case, lies exclusively with the plumbing inspector pursuant to his authority to enforce the International Plumbing Code as adopted and amended by the State Building Commission. 
	In light of the above findings, it is the determination of the Board that the October 17, 2007 plan review disapproval report of the Providence Fire Marshals Office, assuming authority over the underground piping in this complex, is incorrect.  Specifically, the Board directs the Applicant to submit his plans and documentation to the Providence Fire Marshals Office for review and approval of the sprinkler systems within this complex as NFPA 13R compliant sprinkler systems.  Once the sprinkler systems are approved as NFPA 13R compliant systems, the local plumbing inspector shall then have the exclusive jurisdiction, under the International Plumbing Code, as adopted and amended by the State Building Commission, to determine whether the underground piping that services the sprinkler systems is in compliance. 
It is the hope of the Board that the above procedures will resolve most, if not all, of the issues raised in this case.  However, if the Applicant is confronted with additional issues, not resolved by the above procedures, the Applicant may return to the Board to address those issues.

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)].