The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 29, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Filippi, Coutu, Pearson and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Lawrence Goodnough of the West Glocester Fire Marshal’s office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Evans  to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the April 29, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the subject facility is a newly constructed testing center within the FM campus.  The Applicant has appeared before the Board requesting a variance from the provisions of Rhode Island General Law 23-28.25-4(b) which requires the installation of heat detection above suspended ceilings with more than twenty four (24) inches of space between the ceiling and the roof surface above and also within accessible attics.  

During the April 29, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was further advised and finds that the attic ductwork in some of these areas is currently designed for normal exhausting of combustible by-products ranging from three to four hundred degrees.  The Board further finds that occasionally the ductwork would be exhausting combustion at temperatures as high as seven hundred degrees.  The Applicant is requesting to be allowed to eliminate the required heat detection above several ceiling areas and to further replace the heat detection, in the accessible attic, with beam smoke detection.

As part of his argument for the elimination of detection devices in the attic spaces of the viewing area, small burn area, office and visitor area and circulation area, the Applicant has presented the Board with a formal interpretation by the NFPA 13 technical committee covering sprinkler protection in the above referenced areas.  However, the Board notes that F.I. 80-29(A) addresses sprinkler protection as opposed to fire alarm notification devices.  Again, the subject variance request is from the State Fire Alarm Code. 

Finally, the Board finds that all of the subject spaces are deemed to be accessible spaces under the Code, and that most of these areas contain protected wiring and other building components which could be impacted by the substantial temperatures which pass through several of these areas.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.25-4(b) and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to provide approved beam smoke detection throughout all of those areas above the suspended ceilings and within accessible attics in lieu of the required heat detection in those areas.

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)].