The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 17, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Blackburn, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson, Richard and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Curtis Wise and Robert Powers of the East Providence Fire Marshal and Fire Alarm Superintendents Offices.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 17, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant is in the process of constructing industrial space involving solvent manufacturing, aqueous manufacturing and lab areas which will all maintain a once-through air distribution system.  The Board further finds that the once-through ventilation system consists of an air handling unit which delivers air conditioned air to the space and exhaust fans which exhaust 100 of this air.  The Board further finds that there is no return duct work and therefore no recirculated air.  The Board further finds that all three (3) air handling units do have smoke detectors as required by the code in the supply side of the system.  The Board finds that the Applicant is requesting relief from the provisions of NFPA 1 section 13.8.10.5.10.  The Board further finds that the East Providence Fire Alarm Superintendent will have a bypass on the new addressable fire alarm system.  
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 1 section 13.8.10.5.10.  In granting this variance, the Board directs that the East Providence Fire Alarm Superintendent shall be allowed to maintain a bypass on the new addressable fire alarm system of this facility.

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)].