The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 17, 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 Assistant  Deputy State Fire Marshals Richard Silva and Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with the variance request items listed in a May 21, 2009 report developed by Hughes Associates and incorporated by reference in an October 9, 2009 letter from the Providence Fire Marshal's Office.  The above May 21, 2009 variance request report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the November 17, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 21, 2009 variance request report 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, is 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 RIUFC section 11.9.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the fire command center, as proposed, without separation from the remainder of the building by one-hour fire resistant construction.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of RIUFC section 11.9.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the fire command center at less than ninety-six (96) square feet in total area.  Again, the Board understands that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection to this relief.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of RIUFC section 13.8.10.4.3.4 in order to allow the Applicant not to provide the fire command center with status indicators and controls over the air handling systems in light of the fact that there is no smoke management system or air handling units that supply more than 2000 cfm within this complex.  Additionally, the Board hereby grants the above variance to allow the command center not to be provided with status indicators and controls for the elevators as the elevators are in close proximity to the command center and within a line of sight of the command center.  Additionally, the Board notes that there is no stairway door locking system within the building.  In granting this relief, it is also the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	4.  During the November 17, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised but took no action on the Applicants statement that the sprinkler system of this facility would be installed on or before January 1, 2016.
	5.  During the November 17, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal's office presented the Board with differing interpretations of how to classify the spaces which provide access to the trash room on each floor.  The Board noted that these spaces were currently provided with existing heat detection and that the Providence Fire Marshal's office requested that this heat detection remain in place.  However, the Applicant wished to remove this heat detection from these areas.  As part of its overall plan of action for the fire safety of this facility as outlined above, the Board denied the Applicants request to remove heat detection from these areas.  Accordingly, as part of the plan of action for this facility, the Applicant is directed to maintain the above cited heat detection.

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)].