The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 3, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Richard, Jasparro, Pearson, Walker, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Timothy Lutz and Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioners Pearson and Dias 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 revised February 3, 2009 plan of action report compiled by the Applicants engineer.  The revised February 3 plan of action report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the February 3, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the revised February 3, 2009 plan of action report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards 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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of twelve (12) months from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiency 1 by bringing the existing fire alarm system of this facility into compliance with the current fire alarm code requirements.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	2.  During the February 3, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that at the request of the Providence Fire Department, fire sprinkler protection has been installed at the top of the east and west exit stairs and under the bottom landings as required by NFPA 13, 2002 section 8.14.3.2.  In light of the fact that the upper floors are not currently protected by fire sprinklers, the sprinklers located at the top of the stairways are connected to the mezzanine level sprinklers and standpipe respectively.  Accordingly, the sprinklers at the top of the stairs are not currently zoned in accordance with RI Uniform Fire Code section 13.8.10.5.5.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of twelve (12) months from the date of this decision in order to properly zone the above sprinkler heads.  During this period of time, the Board directs the applicant to provide heat detection in this area at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office and to further provide temporary signage at the fire alarm panel advising of this temporary discrepancy.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the current discharge of the egress system as is.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	4.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of sixty (60) days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiency 4 by providing the transfer grilles on each floor with approved fire dampers installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	5.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited handrails and guardrails located in the east and west exit stairway in their current condition.
	6.  The Board hereby grants the Providence Fire Marshal's office the authority to grant the Applicant a temporary certificate of occupancy for the construction work performed on the basement (partial) first and mezzanine floor levels of this facility.

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 Applicants 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 Boards 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 Boards 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)].