The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 12, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Newbrook, O’Connell, Pearson, Burlingame and Filippi were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office, and by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Ronald Raposa  of the Providence Division of Telecommunications.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The underlying facts in this case are outlined in a May 15, 2001 report submitted by the Applicant as part of his application.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the May 15, 2001 correspondence as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board's findings 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. The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize NFPA 13, 1999 edition, in its entirety throughout the course of this project.

2. During the June 12, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Rhode Island Fire Alarm Code limits fire alarm zones to 20,000 square feet.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant shall be installing a complete addressable fire alarm system.  In light of the above, Fire Marshal Raposa had no objection to allow increase of fire alarm zones to 40,000 square feet within this facility.  However, Fire Marshal Raposa advised the Board that, if a zone is down, or there is the failure of the sprinkler system, the Providence Fire Marshal should have the option of requiring a firefighter on duty.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the fire alarm system of this facility with 40,000 square foot zones.  As a condition of this variance, in the event that a zone is down for more than four hours, or there is a failure of the sprinkler system, the Providence Fire Marshal's office shall have the authority to require a firefighter on duty, during all hours of occupancy, paid for by the owner of the facility, until the above systems are fully functional.

3. During the June 12, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised the Providence fire Marshal's office requested a sprinkler head in the trash chute. It was subsequently suggested that the Applicant provide a one hour rated self-closing door at the trash chute area with a sprinkler head above the door.  The Board hereby grants a conditional variance in order to allow the Applicant to construct this facility without providing a sprinkler head within the trash chute but by providing the trash chute area with an approved one hour fire rated self-closing door with a sprinkler head above the door. The above variance is conditioned upon the absence of future fire related incidents in the trash chute and/or chute area. In light of Providence Fire Marshal’s objection to this variance, the Board shall maintain this file open for reconsideration if this situation proves to be as hazardous as the Providence Fire Marshal predicts and for further consideration of any requests by the Applicant prior to the Completion of this project. 

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 8-16-01.