The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 9, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Filippi, Blackburn, Richard, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson and OConnell were present.  The Fire Service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshals Office and Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley of the East Greenwich Fire Marshal's Office.  A motion to deny the requested relief was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Pearson.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 9, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant has requested a variance for the omission of sprinkler heads in the passenger elevator servicing the new lobby of the subject facility.  The Board was further advised and finds that it was the Applicants opinion that the addition of a wet sprinkler in the passenger elevator hoistway and machine room would mandate the installation of shunt trip breakers and a pre-action system as well, adding substantial cost and time to the Applicants project.  The Applicant requested and received an expedited hearing on this question.
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby denies the Applicants request to omit sprinkler coverage in the elevator shaft and elevator mechanical room of this facility.  In denying this request, the Board notes that if the Applicant uses a non-combustible synthetic fluid in the operation of its elevator, there would be no need for the requested relief.  The Board further notes that the oil proposed to be utilized by the Applicant does not meet the combustible fluid exception under the code, because the oil has a flash point of a Class B liquid.  However, it is still a Class A combustible.

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)].