The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on April 4, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, Filippi and OConnell were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Vincent Quinterno of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	By letter dated March 9, 2006, the State Fire Marshal's office advised the Applicant that it was not in compliance with the provisions of section 8.14.1.2 of NFPA 13, 2002 edition.  Specifically, the Applicant did not maintain sprinkler coverage above dry wall ceilings in spaces where access panels were provided.  The Applicant provided these panels in order to maintain the fan coil units placed above the ceilings.  Deputy State Fire Marshal Quinterno advised the Board that Chief Deputy State Fire Marshal DiMascolo and the State Fire Marshal's acting plan review officer Timothy Hawthorne had no objection to the requested relief.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8.14.1.2 of NFPA 13, 2002 edition, in order to allow the Applicant to delete sprinkler coverage above the dry wall ceilings of this facility as identified 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)].