As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on July 14, 2015 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Booth, Filippi, Pearson, Richard, Thornton and Walker.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Peter McMichael, Richard Vespia and John Devlin of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Wayne Moore, Joseph Watson and William Willett.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under R.I.G.L. Chapter 23-28.3, entitled the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Stephen Maorisi (authorized representative) of Brown University, 295 Lloyd Avenue, Providence, RI dated June 5, 2015.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  150062 opened on June 10, 2015.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on July 14, 2015 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioners Booth and Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined in item  1, below.  The motion passed on a 5 to 2 vote with Commissioner Thornton and Walker voting in opposition.  A second motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined in item  2, below.  The motion passed on a 7 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  150062 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  150062 dated June 5, 2015 and filed on June 10, 2015.
2.	Providence Fire Marshals Office plan disapproval letter dated May 15, 2015.
3.	Providence Fire Marshals Office Violation Report dated May 15, 2015.
4.	Letter of authorization for Jensen Hughes from Brown University dated June 3, 2015.
5.	Applicants plan of action letter dated June 8, 2015.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the July 14, 2015 hearing as exhibits:

1.	None.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The Board finds that Brown University [hereinafter Brown] presently maintains a private emergency alarm reporting system, i.e. Gamewell telegraph system, that provides emergency forces notification for approximately one hundred five (105) campus buildings via local energy master boxes via nine (9) Brown box circuits.
2.	The Board finds that the Brown system is interfaced with Providence Fire Departments public emergency alarm reporting system and that all fire alarm signals from the applicable protected premises on the Brown campus are automatically retransmitted to the Providence emergency communications center, also known as the Bureau of Operational Control [hereinafter BOC] via Providence communication circuit  56.
3.	The Board finds that while open circuit fault conditions on any of the Brown box circuits are received and monitored by Brown public safety personnel on campus, they are not automatically retransmitted to Providence BOC as required.
4.	The Applicant has proposed a wireless mesh-network reporting system to replace its aging telegraph equipment which will continue to automatically retransmit alarm signals to the Providence BOC as required.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RILSC section 9.6.4.2 by providing automatic notification of any open circuit fault condition on a Brown box circuit to the Providence BOC.
2.	The Board declines to give approval for or rule on the compliance of the proposed wireless mesh-network system at this time and directs the parties to return to the Board for further review in sixty (60) days if an agreement cannot be reached.

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).

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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 6-2-22).
2.	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 6-2-23.)  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 6-2-24).
3.	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 6-2-25).
4.	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.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18).  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].