The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on May 5, 2009,  at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Richard, Filippi, Blackburn, Preiss, Dias and Jasparro were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief Plan Review Officer Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous and a written Decision was issued on August 27, 2009.

The original Decision was made pursuant to the Boards understanding that the subject facility was classified as a High Hazard occupancy by the State Fie Marshals Office in a Plan Review Report dated December 3, 2008 (Plan Review 08-181).  In addressing the above plan review report in its original Decision, the Board noted that Item 1 (the designation of High Hazard) was a clarification and not a deficiency under the State Fire Code.  The remaining two plan review deficiencies, addressed in the original Decision, were based upon the above designation of High Hazard.
	The Applicant subsequently appealed the Boards Decision to the Sixth District Court requesting that the Court either reverse the Decision or remand the matter for further hearing on the issue of whether the Omega Pumping Station Rack Building is a high hazard occupancy. (A.A. No. 00149).
	The parties to the above appeal met in conference on October 22, 2009 before Judge Robert J. Rahill.  At that time, it was agreed that the matter would be continued for conference on November 23, 2009.  The parties further agreed that, during the continuance, the parties would meet and attempt to resolve the matter.  Specifically, the State Fire Marshals Office would review the underlying factors relied upon in its initial determination that the subject facility was a high hazard occupancy. 

After conducting an extensive review, the State Fire Marshals Office determined that the subject facility should not have been classified as a high hazard occupancy. The State Fire Marshals findings were further confirmed by the staff of the Fire Board. These findings were then reported to Judge Rahill during the follow-up conference on  November 23, 2009.  

Judge Rahill thereupon remanded the case to the Fire Board, directed that the case be re-scheduled for re-hearing within the next thirty (30) days and that the results of the re-hearing be incorporated into an Amended Decision which was to be forwarded to the Court. 
Pursuant to the above Order, this case was reviewed by the Board on December 8, 2009 at 1:00 PM.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Jasparro, Preiss and Richard were present. The Applicant was represented by Michael Hagopian, Esq.  The State Fire Marshals Office was represented by Chief of Inspections Scott Caron.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Dias to amend the original Decision, as outlined herein, based upon the latest classification determination of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The motion was unanimous. ((The current 090005-Amended-A Decision was revised to reflect the proper address and to delete reference to an unrelated building pursuant to Board Rule 6-2-12.)) 

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board finds that the above-captioned facility is pumping station rack building located at 2 Dexter Road in East Providence.  The Board further finds that this facility is generally classified as an industrial occupancy. 
	The Board finds that the State Fire Marshals Office conducted a plan review of the subject facility on December 3, 2008.  The Board finds that Item 1 of the December 3, 2008 plan review identified the subject facility as a high hazard industrial occupancy. The Board finds, as the result of the high hazard determination, that the State Fire Marshals Office listed two additional deficiencies (additional egress) and (explosion venting) in the December 3, 2008 Plan Review Report.  The Board finds that in the absence of a high hazard determination, deficiencies 2 and 3 of the December 3, 2008 plan review report would be moot and not considered to be violations of the State Fire Code.
	Finally, the Board finds that the State Fire Marshals Office has officially determined that the subject facility should not have been classified as a high hazard occupancy.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the remaining deficiencies listed on the December 3, 2008 plan review report are in fact moot and not violations of the State Fire Code.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	Based upon the State Fire Marshals Office latest findings, the Board finds that the subject facility is an industrial occupancy of ordinary hazard. 
2.	In light of the above findings, the Board finds deficiency 2 as outlined on the December 3, 2008 plan review report is moot and not a violation of the State Fire Code.  Accordingly, the Applicant shall not be required to so upgrade this facility. 
3.	In light of the above findings, the Board finds deficiency 3 as outlined on the December 3, 2008 plan review report is also moot and not a violation of the State Fire Code.  Accordingly, the Applicant shall not be required to so upgrade 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)].