The above-captioned case was one of a group of several cases before the Board in 2006 and 2007.  The original decision put forward a plan of action for the upgrade of this facility within a particular time table.  The Applicant has now returned to the Board to request the exclusion of certain areas within this facility from fire alarm coverage.  This case was most recently scheduled for hearing on February 5, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Richard, Pearson, Filippi, Walker and Jackson and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshals Wade Palazini and Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in file number 050607 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that the Applicant is planning to provide this facility with an approved municipally connected fire alarm.  However, the Applicant has requested to exclude the pool and gymnasium areas based on current fire wall separation and the structural makeup of the facility.  Upon review of the Applicants initial request, the Board determined that the room housing the pool and the pool surface itself could be exempted from coverage.  However, the Board determined that the gymnasium area should be provided with approved coverage.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to eliminate fire alarm coverage in the room housing the pool and over the pool surface itself.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the area is relatively safe and properly separated from the remainder of the building.  The Board further notes that it is unlikely a fire would start in this area.  Finally, the Board notes that the chlorine gases and other elements within this area could possibly corrode the fire alarm system creating false alarms and similar problems.


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)].