The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 1, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Preiss, Filippi, Pearson, OConnell, Jackson and Jasparro were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State  Fire Marshal and Fire Chief Gerald Bessette of the Barrington Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn to grant the applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a March 2, 2007 inspection report compiled by the Barrington Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the applicant and the Barrington Fire Marshals Office during the May 1, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 2, 2007 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein.  
	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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	During the May 1, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that this facility maintained a limited area fire alarm system in anticipation of being required to fully sprinkler the facility.  However, the Board was further advised that the Applicant was requesting a further delay in the installation of the sprinkler systems in this existing facility, in anticipation of replacing the building with a new compliant structure with construction beginning no later than 2010.  Specifically, the Applicant was asking for relief not to have to install a sprinkler system in a building that would be demolished and then have to reinstall a sprinkler system in the new structure.  As outlined below, the Board grants the Applicants request from the sprinkler coverage while they temporarily occupy this facility prior to the construction of a fully compliant facility.  However, as a condition of this relief, the Applicant has agreed to bring the fire alarm systems within this complex up to full compliance to code.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide the existing buildings of this complex with a full and complete fire alarm system installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Barrington Fire Marshals Office, in accordance with the following timetable.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision in which to submit plans for the full upgrade of the fire alarm system within this complex.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional 120 days from the approval of the plan review to install the fire alarm system within this complex.
2.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of section 13.3.5.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant not to provide this existing facility with the required sprinkler coverage in light of the fact that this facility is scheduled to be demolished in the near future and that the Applicant shall fully sprinkler the newly constructed facility that will house the current occupants of this complex.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the existing facility with a full coverage fire alarm system upgraded at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Barrington Fire Marshals Office as outlined in item 1 above.

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)].