The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 11, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, Richard, Burlingame and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Sutherland of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner  Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a February 28, 2001 inspection report compiled by the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office. The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office during the September 11, 2001 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 28, 2001 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
	
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. During the September 11, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the existing fire alarm system for this complex provided a single zone for each unit.  The Board was further advised that additional zones were unavailable.  The Applicant appeared and requested relief in order to tie the hood and duct suppression system within this unit into the single zone covering this unit. The Smithfield Fire Marshal's Office had no objection in light of the unique circumstances in this case. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.25-5(g) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the hood and duct suppression system on the same zone as the surrounding unit.

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 9-19-01.