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 Walker, Preiss, Dias and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Lutz of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  An initial motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief in this case.  However, the initial motion failed in light of the opposition of Commissioners Preiss and Dias.  After further discussion, a second motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The second motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Preiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the November 24, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board had before it an October 28, 2009 letter in support of the variance request by the Applicant's engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc.  The letter outlined the Applicant's requested equivalent to full code compliance on the toilet exhaust arrangements on the fifteenth floor of this facility.  After an initial motion and additional discussion, the Providence Fire Marshal's office advised the Board that it had no objection to the proposed equivalency.  Accordingly, the equivalency outlined in the October 28, 2009 letter was adopted by the Board.  In light of the above, the Board hereby adopts the October 28, 2009 letter as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board's findings such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant shall be noted herein.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies in this facility have been or shall be corrected by the Applicant.

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 adopts as an equivalency for compliance, the Applicant's proposal as outlined in the October 28, 2009 letter from the Applicant's engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.

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)].