The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 13, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, Filippi and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James L. Cady of the Central Coventry Fire Marshals office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the December 13, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board reviewed three (3) plan review letters issued by the Central Coventry Fire Marshals office.  The first letter was dated September 6, 2004, the second letter was dated November 11, 2004 and the third letter was dated November 29, 3005.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the above plan review letters as its initial findings of fact.  The Board further reviewed an August 24, 2005 memorandum from the Applicants engineer regarding the installation of rack sprinklers in this facility.  The above letter concludes that there would be minimal risk in eliminating the rack sprinklers.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.
	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 a variance in order to allow the Applicant to either comply with the provisions requiring rack sprinklers or an alternative method of engineering deemed acceptable to the local fire marshal.  During the hearing, it was suggested that the sprinklers could be upgraded utilizing ESFR sprinklers.  It was suggested that large drop sprinklers could penetrate the fire load more effectively.  Accordingly, this or another properly engineered method could be incorporated as an alternative to full compliance.  Once the Applicant and the Central Coventry Fire Marshals office have made such a determination, they are directed to send a letter to the Board outlining their plan of action.

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)].