The above-captioned cases were scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Jackson, Preiss and Richard were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the September 16, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant is requesting relief from the provisions of RIUFC section 13.8.10.6.2.2 and NFPA 72 (2002 edition) section 6.4.2.2.2 that require a minimum separation between the feed and return of the Class A wiring to be separated by one (1) foot vertically and four (4) feet horizontally.  The Board was further advised that the above sections allow for three (3) exceptions where the feed and return may be run in the same raceway.  However, the Board was further advised that in four (4) units per residential floor of the three buildings within this complex, there are locations where the feed and return are within the same soffit system that connect to no more than two speakers in the same apartment unit.  The Board was further advised and finds that the feed and return are supplied by separate MC cables within the soffit system and that in the locations in these units where the wiring for two speakers is being concealed within the soffit, the separation distances of the feed and return do not satisfy the minimum requirements of the RIUFC or meet the exceptions to NFPA 72.
	The Board was further advised and finds that this installation issue has been created due to a primary existing condition within the three buildings.  Specifically, it has been discovered and documented that the spray applied ceiling treatment throughout all three buildings contained a contaminant that must remain encapsulated.  Accordingly, the sprinkler and fire alarm installations have been restricted to mounting sprinkler pipe and fire alarm raceway to the interior walls.  Finally, the Providence Director of Fire Alarm appeared and noted that he had no objection to the requested relief.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of RIUFC section 13.8.10.6.2.2 and NFPA 72 (2002 edition) section 6.4.2.2.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing, above noted, separation between the feed and the return of the Class A wiring within the three (3) buildings of this complex.  In granting this relief, the Board notes the structural hardship to the Applicant of not being able to utilize the ceilings of these facilities for the installation of the fire alarm wiring and further that the Providence Fire Marshal's Office has no objection in light of the limited nature of the wiring and the devices which they serve.

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)].