The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Newbrook, Preiss, Filippi and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief James Cotter of the Narragansett Fire Department.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Filippi 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 October 17, 2006 inspection report compiled by the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office during the November 14, 2006 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 17, 2006 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards 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 this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 22.4.4.2.1 and 8.2.1 in order to allow the Applicant to limit sprinkler coverage in this facility to the cell area and the sally port adjacent to the cell block.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the majority of this building is existing and not utilized for detention purposes.  The Board further directs that the Applicant provide approved smoke detection in the cell block area at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Narragansett Fire Chief.  The Board further directs the Applicant to maintain video surveillance of the cell block area on a twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week basis in order to further ensure the fire safety of the detainees in 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)].