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 Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Potter of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 9, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Warwick Fire Marshal's office reviewed plans for the above captioned facility and determined that a 3134 square-foot cleaning room within this fully sprinklered facility should also be sprinklered.  The Applicant has sought a variance not to add a sprinkler system to the clean room, in that the clean room is a modular, self-supported structure that has been assembled within a larger sprinklered area.  The Board further finds that the Applicant manufactures surgical instruments and that water dripping from the sprinkler system or condensating on the pipes could provide a breeding ground for germs, bacteria and molds.  The Board further finds that the clean room does have heat sensors, smoke detectors, horn strobe lights and emergency lighting.  The Board further finds that the HVAC units have been wired in a way that they will shut down if a pull station is pulled or the existing sprinkler system is activated.  The Applicants alternative proposal is to provide a network of fire extinguishers throughout the clean room instead of a sprinkler system.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant is governed by FDA rules for a controlled environment.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby directs the Warwick Fire Marshal's office to determine whether or not a sprinkler system would be required for the above space.  In the event a sprinkler system is required for the clean room, the Board hereby grants the Warwick Fire Marshal's office the authority to approve an alternative system for the protection of this area.
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)].