The above-captioned cases were originally scheduled for hearing on May 24, 2011 and a decision was mailed on August 31, 2011.  This matter was most recently scheduled for hearing on October 4, 2011 at 1:00 P.M. pursuant to questions raised by both the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections Scott Caron and Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Also present was Fire Chief and Marshal Gerald Bessette of the Barrington Fire Marshals Office.  However, Chief Bessette advised the Board that the Authority Having Jurisdiction in this case would be the Office of the State Fire Marshal for both compliance with the occupancy and fire alarm requirements for this complex.  Chief Bessette further advised the Board of his objection as to the use of salt water for fire suppression and his objection to the development of a reasonable alternative protection to sprinkler coverage as outlined in NFPA 303.  After reviewing the testimony of the Applicant, the State Fire Marshals Office and the Barrington Fire Marshal, a motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioner Burlingame and Commissioner Richard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates its original findings of fact in file numbers 050072(1), 050072(2) and 050072(3), as specifically outlined within the August 31, 2011 written decision on this matter, as its initial findings of fact.  Based on the testimony presented and the documentation submitted to the Board, the Board further finds that the Bristol County Water Authority is not providing the subject complex with adequate water to support sprinkler coverage.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant has explored all other alternatives with the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board was further advised and finds that if the Applicant utilized salt water as part of the sprinkler systems for these facilities, the systems could potentially be compromised and be required to be replaced at least once every ten (10) years.
The Board further finds that the Applicant has been working with the State Fire Marshals Office to develop alternative safeguards to the required sprinkler coverage.  The Board further finds that the State Fire Marshals Office is willing to work with the Applicant to further develop reasonable alternatives for the protection of these facilities.  The Board further finds that this is a method approved under NFPA Standard 303 covering Marinas.  Finally, the Board notes the objection of the Barrington Fire Marshals Office along with the fact that the Barrington Fire Marshals Office has advised that the State Fire Marshals Office would be the Authority Having Jurisdiction over this project.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  In light of the above findings, the Board hereby amends its original decision covering file numbers 050072(1), 050072(2) and 050072(3) in order to allow the building owner to work with the State Fire Marshals Chief of Inspections and Chief of Plan Review in the development of alternative protection in lieu of sprinkler coverage for the above captioned facilities.  This plan should further address any unique hazards to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office, pursuant to a comprehensive performance-based plan review.  The Board further grants the Applicant a time variance until July 1, 2012 for the installation of all fire alarm coverage within this facility.  The Board further grants the Applicant a time variance until July 1, 2013 for the implementation of the alternative plan of action accepted by the State Fire Marshals Office for the waiver of sprinkler coverage for these facilities.  In granting this relief, the Board again notes the above objection of the Barrington Fire Marshals Office.


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)].