The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 6, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Coutu, O’Connell and Pearson were present.  No Fire Marshal was present.  However, the Board noted that the Applicant has actually requested an increase in the fire protection of this facility.  Accordingly, a motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the May 6, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the applicant had recently replaced its Simplex Fire Alarm panel with a new control panel with audio.  Prior to this installation, when the alarm sounded for any reason, it sounded on all floors.  However, with the new panel, if someone pulls the alarm, it only rings on the floor of incident and the floor above.

The Applicant is requesting a variance for the fire alarm panel to ring on all floors as it has done in the past in order to vacate the entire building.  The Applicant notes that this is a six story building but is over seventy five (75) feet in height which designates it as a high rise building.  The Applicant further notes that there are twenty-two separate government agencies in this building, and on behalf of the building security committee, they are requesting the above relief in order to clear up any confusion within the government agencies in this building.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies in this facility will 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 grants a variance from the high rise provisions of the Code in order to allow the applicant to fully evacuate this building at any time the alarm has sounded.  In granting the Applicant’s requested relief, the Board notes that the requested relief enhances the fire protection of 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)].