The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 16, 2001 at l:30 p.m.  At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, Coutu, Burlingame, Filippi, Newbrook, Evans and O’Connell.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Chief Ernest Cimino of the Valley Falls Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  

FINDING OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a September 24, 2001 inspection report compiled by the Valley Falls Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Valley Falls Fire Marshal’s Office, during the October 16, 2001 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 24, 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.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #1, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Valley Falls Fire Marshal’s Office.

2.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.25-4(b) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing local fire alarm system within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that all municipally connected fire alarm systems within the town of Cumberland notify the central dispatching station which is located within the above facility. Accordingly, the Board agrees with the Valley Falls Fire Marshal’s Office that the requirement of supervision is unnecessary in this case.

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)]