The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 24, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richards, Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshals Office.  An initial motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief from providing fire alarm coverage in the non-combustible ceiling space of this facility.  The initial motion did not pass.  A follow-up motion was made to allow the Applicant to protect the area with alternative coverage such as line type heat detection, protector wire or another type of heat detection providing full coverage, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Cranston Fire Marshals office.  This motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject facility is a prison and that the Applicant proposes to provide this area with a new fire alarm system.  The Board finds that the space above the ceiling and below the concrete floor has ladder access and is above twenty-four (24) inches in height.  The Board further finds that there are no combustibles within this area and that the environment may not be conducive to standard heat detection devices.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies within this facility shall be 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 understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the fire alarm provisions of the code in order to allow the Applicant to provide the cited accessible ceiling space with alternative heat detection.  Specifically, the Applicant may protect the cited accessible ceiling space with line type heat detectors, protector wire or other heat detection providing full coverage acceptable to the Cranston Fire Marshals office.  The Board notes that by letter dated December 28, 2005, the Superintendent of Fire Alarms for the City of Cranston advised that, given the occupancy and construction, he had no objection to the requested variance.

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)].