The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 13, 2001 at 1:30 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, O’Connell, Richard and Evans were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the March 13, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board reviewed two undated letters from North Scituate Fire Marshal Karl Petsching. These letters outlined the structural and practical problems that the Applicant encountered in attempting to comply with the Fire Code’s directive to ceiling mount all smoke detectors. 

These uncontested letters are hereby incorporated by reference as the Board’s initial findings of fact in this case. At the request of Marshal Petsching, Marshal Howe appeared and advised the Board that that the North Scituate Fire Marshal’s Office had no objection to the requested relief.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies 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 grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.34-3(d) in order to allow the Applicant to mount the smoke detectors, in this facility, on the walls, approximately six inches down from the ceiling joists, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Scituate Fire Marshal.  In granting this variance, the Board notes the Applicant’s hardship and that the National Standard, NFPA standard 74, specifically allows detectors to be “located on or near the ceiling".  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the North Scituate Fire Marshal's office has no objection.

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 3-28-01.