This is the third time the above captioned case has been scheduled for hearing.  This case was previously heard by the Board on July ll, 2000, and on March l3, 2001.  The case was most recently scheduled for subcommittee hearing on February l2, 2002.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Fang and Filippi were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The recommendations of the subcommittee as noted herein was presented to the full Board on February l9, 2002.  At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, O’Connell, Fang, Filippi and Burlingame were present.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Fang to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

The Board hereby adopts its original findings in File Nos.:  200151 and 200l5lA as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings such as correction of a deficiency shall be noted herein.  Finally, the Board notes the general objection of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office to the Applicant’s request for relief.

	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 a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing standpipe system as is for now.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office with an analysis of the seismic integrity of the sprinkler and standpipe system as installed.  The Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office objects to the granting of this variance.

2.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Life Safety Code Sections 5-1.5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the ductwork installed in the occupied basement of this facility at or below the six foot eight inch (6’8”) headroom requirement on the egress path.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the basement shall remain unoccupied and be put to no other use.

3.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Life Safety Code Sections 5-1.6 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the small existing changes in elevation on the existing basement floor and a section of a new floor within this facility.

4.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Life Safety Code Section 6-2.4.3 and 6-2.4.4 as it relates to the bottom shaft enclosure within this facility.  Specifically, the vertical shafts enclosing ventilation ducts, electrical heaters and plumbing, have a bottom enclosure that is similar to a two (2) hour rated assembly outlined in U-428.  All other penetrations within the bottom of the shaft enclosure have been sealed by either approved fire dampers or products with an approved two- (2) hour rating.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the above sections in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the bottom of shaft enclosure as described above.

5.	The Board notes the general objection of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.

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)]