The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 24, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Richard, Preiss and Walker were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from participation in this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Lutz of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Decision below is based upon an October 1, 2009 technical support letter submitted by the Applicant in support of his variance request.  The above October 1, 2009 technical support letter was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the November 24, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 1, 2009 technical support letter 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 this code, or as approved in particular by the state fire marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Rhode Island Life Safety Code, Sections 7.4.1.6 and 7.2.1.6 to allow the Applicant to utilize the alternative special locking arrangements, in accordance with NFPA, 2009 Edition, Section 7.2.1.6.3, at the elevator lobbies in the above-captioned building.  This variance is based upon the justification presented by the Applicant in his October 1, 2009 technical support letter and in the absence of an objection by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  


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)].