The above case was scheduled many times before the Board.  The most recent case was scheduled for hearing on May 7, 2002 at l:00 p.m. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, O’Connell, Filippi, Burlingame, Newbrook, and Coutu were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Lt. George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Member Burlingame.

FINDING OF FACT

In the most recent Decision issued by the Board in File No.:  200l5lA-l, the Board granted a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing standpipe system in this facility as currently installed.  In granting this variance, the Board directed 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.  At that time, the Board noted the Providence Fire Marshal’s objection to the granting of this variance.  The Applicant subsequently presented the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office with a March 9, 2002 analysis provided by Odeh Engineers, Inc.  On April 2, 2002, the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office sought clarification of the engineering analysis.  By letter dated April l9, 2002, the engineer responded to the Providence Fire Marshal’s questions.  The engineer further appeared before the Board on May 7, 2002 and answered the questions of the Board regarding the integrity of the standpipe system within this facility.  The Board was satisfied with the analysis and the explanation.

	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 reaffirms the original variance granted in File No.:  200l5lA-l and expands the same to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing seismic protection of the standpipe system of this facility without further condition.  In reaffirming and expanding this variance, the Board notes the objection of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office that it was possible to initially correct this situation.  The Board further notes the opposition vote of Member Burlingame.

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)]