The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 15, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Preiss, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Glen Bathgate of the Cranston Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall bring this facility into full compliance with the code with the exception of the local fire alarm system requirements.  The Board further finds that the Applicant is requesting a variance in order to install a UL approved wireless fire alarm system as opposed to a hard-wired system.  The Board further finds that provisions have been made in the fire code to allow for wireless fire alarm systems.  Finally, the Board has determined that the Applicant needs additional time in which to provide the Cranston Fire Marshal's office with approved plans and to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system.
	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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance, until April 1, 2006, to provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system, either hard-wired or wireless in accordance with the code, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Cranston Superintendent of Fire Alarm.


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)].