The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 25, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Coutu, Burlingame, Evans and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire marshal Joseph Marcello of the Oakland-Mapleville Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to deny the Applicants requested relief.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 25, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought a variance in order to install portions of the fire alarm wiring in PVC piping with an insulated equipment ground wire attached instead of installing the wire in EMT.  The Applicant further advised the Board that this would be installed in very limited areas where there are required wash-downs with a salt and water solution.  The Board finds that PVC piping is not the only solution in situations where pipes are corroded in wash down areas.  The Board further finds that under the Code the Applicant may use galvanized rigid pipe to address this problem.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	In light of the Applicants option to use galvanized rigid pipe under the Code, the Board hereby denies the requested relief to place the system in PVC pipe.  The Board notes that the utilization of galvanized rigid pipe would provide better protection of the wiring system from impact than would the PVC piping being requested.  Accordingly, the Applicants request for PVC piping is denied.  The Board recommends the Applicant explore the Code for other options available to him in this regard.

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)].