The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 25, 2001 at l:30 p.m.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Evans, Filippi, Wahlberg, O’Connell and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Ron Raposa of the Providence Department of Telecommunications Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner O’Connell and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

During the September 25, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought to utilize a system of radio repeaters in lieu of the fire telephones as mandated by the provisions of Chapter 23-28.25-4(c) of the fire alarm code.  Fire Marshal Raposa appeared and advised the Board that his office would have no objection to the requested variance as an appropriate alternative to the fire phone system.  
	
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 the Applicant a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.25-4(c) in order to allow the Applicant to provide this facility with an approved radio repeater system in lieu of the required fire phones.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Department of Telecommunications has no 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 11-07-01.