The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 2, 2002 at l:00 p.m. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Filippi, Richard, Pearson, O’Connell, Wahlberg, Burlingame, Newbrook, and Coutu were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Daniel Isles of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

During the April 2, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant requested an extension of the sprinkler coverage zone area for the proposed Bread and Circus facility at 569 North Main Street.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Department of Communications had no objection to the extension of the sprinkler zone coverage area for the above captioned facility.  

Further, the Board finds that there shall be an addressable fire alarm system installed within this facility to allow for a pinpoint description of the incident location.  Accordingly, both the Telecommunications Department and Providence Fire Marshal’s Office had no objection to the requested relief.
	
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.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.25-5(H)(l) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the single sprinkler system within this facility within the NFPA size limitations as opposed to the fire alarm zone limitations.  In granting this variance on the basis of the national standard, it is the understanding of the Board that neither the Providence Fire Marshal or the Department of Communications has an objection.

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.

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 Board’s Decision, shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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 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.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)].

This decision was mailed on 6-12-02.