The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 20, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Richard, Walker, Jasparro, Dias and Filippi were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the October 20, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from having to provide Phase II firefighter service in a newly constructed elevator within this facility.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant sought a waiver from the sump pump requirement within this hoistway.  The State Fire Marshal's office appeared and objected to a variance on the Phase II firefighter service for this new elevator.  However, the Board determined that, given the circumstances in this case, it could grant relief from the sump pump requirement with approved detection in the sump pit. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide the cited elevator with approved Phase II firefighter service.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to install this elevator without a sump pump provided the Applicant installs approved detection in the sump pump pit at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's 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)].