The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 12, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Blackburn, Richards, Newbrook, Preiss, Evans, Burlingame, Pearson, Filippi and OConnell were present.  Vice Chairman Coutu recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Gerald Dion of the Central Falls Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the July 12, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board reviewed documentation and was further advised that the rate of rise detectors within this facility had triggered scores of false alarms over the last several years.  The Board was further advised and finds that the above detection devices can be accidentally triggered by a steamy shower or other non-fire events.  The Board finds that the Applicant has come before it requesting that she be allowed to remove the existing rate of rise detectors and replace these detectors with fixed detection throughout her apartment complex.  Many of the rate of rise detectors are currently located within eight (8) feet of a fixed detector in the same room.  The Board finds that, in this particular complex, the substitution of fixed detection for rate of rise detection may reduce the frequency of false alarms while providing the same basic level of safety.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to substitute fixed heat detectors for rate of rise detectors within this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Central Falls Fire Marshals office.  Specifically, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days in order to secure bids for the removal of the above devices.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to complete the removal of the devices within a timetable established by the Central Falls Fire Marshals office.  Finally, the Board shall leave this file open in the event there are future requests by either the Applicant or the Central Falls 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)].