The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 30, 2002 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, O’Connell, Preiss, Pearson, Burlingame and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the July 30, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant is proposing the construction of a new gasoline station. The Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshals have recognized that the facility, as proposed, may occasionally provide for obstructed sight lines between the cashier and the dispensing operation. 
In order to address this problem, the Applicant has proposed to provide both a handicap parking space and a clear space in front of the building. In theory, the handicap space would only be used occasionally. Accordingly, unobstructed sight lines would be maintained during a majority of the time that the station is open. 

The Applicant has further proposed the installation of a closed circuit TV monitoring system in order to assure observation of each pump when an occasional obstruction is created by use of the handicap space. As an additional safeguard, the Board directs, and the Applicant agrees, that if a monitor is disabled for any reason, the Applicant shall immediately shut down the pump(s) observed by this monitor until such time that as the monitor is brought back online.

Finally, the Applicant has advised the Board that the requested relief is similar to that previously granted in File No. 990234 (2336 Pawtucket Avenue). In that case, the Board recognized the use of a TV monitoring system, with certain restrictions, as a viable public safety alternative to permanent unobstructed site lines. In that case, as here, there was the potential for only an occasional of loss of the sight lines. It is the understanding of the Board that, over the past few years, the operation at 2336 Pawtucket has proceeded without incident.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility shall be corrected by the Applicant before occupancy. 
	
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 provisions of NFPA 1, section 
22-2.8.4.7 (1997 Edition) in order to allow the Applicant to utilize TV monitoring as an approved backup system when the actual sight lines between the attendant and the fuel dispensing operation are occasionally obstructed by a vehicle parking in the handicap and/or clear space(s) of this facility. In granting this variance, as discussed during the hearing, the Board directs that if a monitor is disabled for any reason, the Applicant shall immediately shut down the pump(s) observed by this monitor until such time that as the monitor is brought back online. 

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)].

This decision was mailed on 8-20-02.