The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 21, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Filippi, Newbrook, Coutu, Richard, Preiss, Wahlberg and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy Fire Marshal Daniel Isles of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Richard to deny the Applicants requested relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds this facility to be approximately 5,500 square feet in total area.  The Board further finds that this facility shall house approximately twenty-six (26) people.  The Board further finds that this facility shall be provided with an approved municipally connected fire alarm system and full sprinkler system.  The Applicant has come before the Board requesting relief from providing a flow switch connection between the sprinkler system and the fire alarm system.  Specifically, the sprinkler system was not designed to provide notification to the fire alarm system of incidence occurring in particular zones within this building.  However, the activation of the sprinkler system could be tied to a single zone, which would at least alert the residence and the Providence Fire Marshals Office of activation of the system in general.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility shall be 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 denies the Applicants request not to tie in the sprinkler system of this facility into the fire alarm system.  However, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to provide only a single flow switch on the sprinkler system, which will be tied into the fire alarm system.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the system as designed would not provide for approved notification even if flow switches were installed on each level.  However, the Board believes that a single flow switch providing notification to the fire alarm system is a far superior alternative than maintaining the sprinkler system without flow switch coverage.
	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)].