The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 28, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Burlingame, Pearson, Newbrook, O’Connell and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Mark Vincent of the Hopkins Hill Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner O’Connell to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an August 19, 2004 variance request attachment submitted by the Applicant and reviewed by the Hopkins Hill Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above attachment was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Hopkins Hill Fire Marshal’s Office during the September 28, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the August 19, 2004 attachment as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
	
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 the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal.)”

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.10.5.8 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to provide this facility with approved fire alarm sprinkler zones extended to a maximum of 40,000 square feet.  The Board notes that this was comparable to the relief previously granted Home Depots in Johnston, Middletown and Providence.  The Board further notes that the Hopkins Hill Fire Marshal’s office, by letter dated August 25, 2004, had no objection to the requested relief.
	
2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.15.2.3 in order to delete sprinkler protection in the chute feed compactor.  As a condition of this variance, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to fully comply with its alternative plan of action as outlined in the August 19, 2004 attachment in this case.  Specifically, the Applicant shall provide the cited chute with an approved hinged solid metal door (1/4 inch minimum thickness) installed over the chute opening which is located in the receiving area of the Home Depot.  The Board further directs that the opening shall have a latching system which is in the secured position with a lock when not being used.  The lock shall be under the control of store management only.  Finally, one pendant sprinkler with a one by one foot sheet metal heat collector shall be installed approximately three feet above the trash chute door and about six inches off the wall.

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)].