The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on August 29, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Burlingame, Evans, Newbrook, Wahlberg and O'Connor were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Mark St Pierre of the Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous. 

On September 12, 2000, the parties returned to the Board to allow for the placement of a fire fighter on duty at the Burrillville High School, as needed, until the completion of the current project but no later than December 31, 2000. This request was approved by the Board pursuant to a motion by Commissioner Coutu with second by Commissioner Pearson. The motion was unanimous.  

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
As outlined in the original decision in this matter, the Board was advised, and finds, that the fire alarm system within this facility was being upgraded as outlined below.  Specifically, the Board was advised that the Applicant was providing new fire alarm coverage to a recently created addition to this facility.  Accordingly, this complex shall temporarily maintain two fire alarm systems with two master boxes.  Eventually, the entire complex shall be covered by at new fire alarm system with one master box.
	
The Board was further advised, and finds, that the existing fire alarm system shall remain operational most of the time.  However, there will be times when the existing system will be down either for repair or for the testing of the new fire alarm system.  It is at these times, that the Applicant wishes to maintain a “fire watch” by providing the school with a Harrisville firefighter, equipped with two-way radio, to patrol during the periods of time when the fire alarm system(s) are in need of repair or testing.
	
Finally, the Board was advised, and finds, that the while the Applicant plans to complete the new fire alarm installation by September 7, 2000, there may continue to be periods that the fire alarm may be inactive until the entire project is completed – before December 31, 2000.  The Applicant has thereupon requested an additional time variance, until December 31, 2000, to be able to provide a detailed firefighter on duty, as outlined above, when the fire alarm system(s) of this facility are in need of repair or testing.  The Applicant has agreed that there shall be no occupancy of the school after 3 PM, during the above period of time.  It is the further understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies within this complex have been corrected by the Applicant.	
	
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, is defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. The Board hereby grants a time variance, from the provisions of chapter 23-28.25, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a detailed firefighter on duty, equipped with two-way radio, as needed, during all periods of time in which one or both of the fire alarm systems of this facility are not functioning.  This time variance shall expire on December 31, 2000.  

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].