The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Ronald Raposa of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office Division of Communications.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the April 6, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant applied for a variance to reduce the number of sprinkler flow switches in his sprinkler system to one (1) per sprinkler riser.  The Board was further advised that there is one (1) separate sprinkler riser per each of the two (2) buildings covered by this application.  Each building contains three (3) units, one per floor.  Finally, the Board was advised that in light of the existing fire alarm system, the Applicant would have to reconfigure the sprinkler system in order to comply with this code requirement.  Finally, the Board finds that the Providence Fire Marshal’s office had no objection in light of the current fire protection within this facility, and the hardship imposed upon the Applicant.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to reduce the number of sprinkler flow switches in this system to one (1) per sprinkler riser.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that there is one (1) separate sprinkler riser in each of the two buildings of this facility.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal’s office has no objection and that compliance with this mandate would require the Applicant to reconfigure his existing sprinkler system and therefore impose a hardship upon him.

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)].