The above captioned case was scheduled and heard by the Board on October 29, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Preiss, OConnell, Filippi, Richard, Coutu, Wahlberg and Newbrook were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bessette and Cunha of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
	The Decision herein is pursuant to a review of the audiotape of these proceedings.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the October 29, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the original occupancy of this facility required a sprinkler system.  The Board was further advised that the current occupancy does not require a sprinkler system and that the sprinkler system had previously been disabled due to freezing.  A violation notice was issued on October 11, 2001 indicating that the sprinkler system was not properly maintained and should be repaired.
	On his application, the Applicant advised the Board that repair of this system would impose a financial hardship upon him.  However, the Board understands that the East Providence Fire Marshal does not want to have detrimental reliance upon a system, which is not properly functioning.  Finally, the Board notes that there are generally only two (2) occupants within the building and that there is only low hazard storage within the building.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies have been corrected by the Applicant.
	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 defined in Section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
1.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision in which to remove the sprinkler heads and system valve from the sprinkler pipes within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that a casual observer would not believe the system to be active in the absence of sprinkler heads and a sprinkler valve.  However, a subsequent owner or occupant of this facility could easily repair and upgrade the remaining sprinkler piping if he or she so desired.

	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.  
	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.   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.  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.  
	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)].