The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing before a subcommittee of the Board on July 16, 2009 at 9:30 A.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Jasparro and Commissioner Dias were present.  Commissioner Jackson recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Scott Perkins, Christopher Heon and David Pimental of the West Warwick Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
The above recommendation was thereupon presented to the full Board on July 21, 2009.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Jackson, Preiss, Walker and Jasparro were present.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to adopt the subcommittees recommendation and to grant the relief therein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the July 16, 2009 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board had before it a March 14, 2006 letter from the Town of West Warwick Director of Communications advising the Applicant that a municipal fire alarm system would be required within his facility.  The Board was further advised and finds that the subject facility is fully sprinklered.  The Board further finds that the Applicant filed a timely appeal requesting time to install a fire alarm system.  During the July 16, 2009 hearing, the Applicant further advised the Board that has was subsequently advised by the West Warwick Fire Marshal's office that he had to install the fire alarm system within this facility at a point prior to the appeal being heard.  
	The Board takes administrative notice of the fact that Board rule 6-2-1 specifically advises that the filing of a Fire Board administrative appeal shall automatically stay further enforcement action by the AHJ and the building shall be considered in compliance with the code while on appeal until the case is heard or abatement procedures are implemented.  The Board further notes that rule 6-2-1 has safeguards within in which would allow any AHJ to request that the automatic stay be suspended because such a stay would endanger the public and/or the owners tenants or employees.  The Board finds that the West Warwick Fire Marshal's office never requested such an extension under Board rule 6-2-1.  Accordingly, the Board finds that this appeal is stayed from further enforcement by the AHJ until the July 16, 2009 hearing.
	Finally, the Board finds that the West Warwick Superintendent of Fire Alarm was unable to attend the July 16, 2009 hearing and that the three West Warwick Fire Marshals in attendance had no knowledge as to whether or not individuals from that office had requested the Applicant to comply with the code during the period covered by the rule 6-2-1 stay.  However, both the West Warwick Fire Marshal's office and the Applicant have advised the Board and the Board finds that the facility is currently in compliance because the Applicant did in fact install the requested fire alarm system during the period of the rule 6-2-1 stay.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  While the Board finds that the facility is currently in compliance, the question remains as to whether or not the West Warwick Fire Marshal's office required the Applicant to install a fire alarm system in this facility while the appeal was pending and the rule 6-2-1 stay was in effect.  Accordingly, the Board shall maintain this file open in order to determine whether or not the Applicant was required to comply with the code during the period of the rule 6-2-1 stay.  Accordingly, the Board directs the West Warwick Fire Marshal's office to meet with the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal's office along with representatives of the Board to determine what exactly transpired in this case and what remedies would be available to the parties involved.  
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 subcommittee recommendations within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this decision by filing an appeal to the entire Fire Board for review, pursuant to R.I.G.L. 23-28.3-5(b)(4).  In the absence of a timely appeal, the subcommittee recommendations shall have the status of a full Board decision.