The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 13, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners O'Connell, Richard, Evans and Burlingame were present.  Commissioner Newbrook recused himself from consideration of this case. The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections, William Howe of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During the March 13, 2001 hearing of this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from the provisions of section 23-28.17-4 in order to allow the Applicant to replace the two hour fire rated door and assembly with the wired glass door with sprinkler coverage on both sides.  The above request was made in order to allow the receptionist in the lobby to observe people entering the building. It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been corrected.

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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.17-4 in order to allow the Applicant to install a one-hour rated glass door and assembly in the stairway this facility.  Specifically, the Board hereby grants relief from the two hour fire rating requirements in order to allow the newly created glass door assembly to be listed by UL, FM or another nationally recognized testing agency as one-hour fire rated.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].