The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 06, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Richard, Coutu, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Garon of the Cumberland Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	Based on the documentation submitted in the testimony taken during the January 06, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board finds that this facility is a class C place of assembly as defined in the Rhode Island Fire Safety Code.  The Board further finds that this facility is required to have a supervised fire alarm system with annunciation devices to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The Act identifies specific light intensity for visual fire alarm signals.  The Board further finds that the compliance is generally certified by installing visual strobe units that are listed and approved by Underwriters Laboratories standard number 1971. The Applicant has advised the Board that this requirement would cause an excessive installation of fire alarm notification devices in the large open tennis court area of this facility.  Accordingly, the owner is requesting relief to be allowed to maintain an alternative system.
	The Board finds that the largest visual strobe unit listed under UL1971 has an effective illumination of over approximately 2500 square feet.   The Board further finds that the two 4-court tennis areas cover approximately 27,000 square feet in area and, in accordance with the above formula, would each require a minimum of 11 visual strobe units.
	The Board finds that the Applicant is proposing that one fire alarm strobe unit could provide a visual alarm throughout the entire area within each tennis court wing.  However, this unit is not an ADA approved unit.  The visual strobe is listed under UL under their1638 standard for outdoor strobe units.  The Applicant has requested a variance from the provisions of the fire code in order to install the above unit.  By copy of this decision, the Board advised the Applicant that while he may obtain a variance from the State Fire Code, this doesnt relieve him of any specific requirements under the American with Disabilities Act.  Accordingly, the Applicant may need to seek additional relief from the Federal Authority overseeing the ADA.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 72 in order to grant the Applicant relief from the installation of strobe lights in an accordance with UL Standard 1971 and to substitute two large strobe lights, listed under UL standard 1638, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Cumberland Fire Marshals Office.  This variance shall only be valid as long as the Applicant maintains his current occupancy of this portion of this facility as open tennis courts.  In the event the Applicant modifies this occupancy, the Applicant is directed to first provide this facility with whatever strobe lights are then required under the State Fire Code.  The new strobe lights shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Cumberland Fire Marshals Office.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in which to install the strobe lights, listed by UL under their 1638 standard, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Cumberland Fire Marshals Office.  Two such strobe lights shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Cumberland Fire Marshal one in each wing of the tennis court.

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)].