The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 1, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Richard, Evans, Burlingame, Coutu and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bruce Rice and Robert Emmett.  A motion to deny the requested relief was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Evans.  The motion further granted the Applicant a time variance of 120 days to comply.  The motion was unanimous.
	
During the July 1, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that there were voids above the drop ceiling and below the bottom chord of the truss that were not protected by sprinklers.  The Board was further advised that these voids were originally 23 inches.  However, when the Applicant removed a 5/8 inch fire rated sheetrock shield from the ceiling, the voids became 22 ˝ inches.  The original plans for this facility included the 5/8 inch fire rated shield.  It is the understanding of the Board that all of the fire code deficiencies in this facility 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 denies the Applicant’s request for relief and directs the Applicant to comply with the original plans as presented to the Fire Marshal.  The Board further grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in which to bring this facility back into compliance with the originally approved plans.  The Board further grants a variance to allow the Applicant to utilize the current system of sprinkler heads as part of the fire alarm protection devices for this facility.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].