The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2004 and a decision was issued on November 10, 2004.  The Applicant has now returned requesting the Board’s approval of a supplemental plan of action recommended by the State Fire Marshal’s Office related to the implementation of item #4 of the original decision.  The above captioned case was thereupon rescheduled for hearing on January 25, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Pearson, Filippi and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Patrick Cull of the State Fire Marshal’s Office and the Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Moise of the Providence 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 passed with Commissioner Burlingame abstaining from the vote.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in file number 040239 as its initial findings of facts in this case.  During the January 25, 2005, hearing on this matter, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal’s Office presented the Board with a “bridge building fire alarm system plan of action.”  The above plan of action was dated January 17, 2005 and consisted of three written pages with a diagram on the fourth page.  The Board hereby adopts the January 17, 2005, plan of action as its additional findings of facts in this case.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants a variance adopting the Applicant’s January 17, 2005, plan of action as approved by the Providence and State Fire Marshal’s Office.  The Board notes that this plan of action would not require automatic shut down of operating room units (5) and (6) on the second floor of this facility.  As a condition of the acceptance of this plan of action, the Board reduces the time for the upgrade of the fire alarm system of this facility to one (1) year of the date of the January 25, 2005 hearing.  Finally, the Board notes that the sprinkler system covering this facility shall remain fully operational.

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)].