The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 28, 2011 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Acting Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester and Burlingame were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Jeffery Almond of the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioners Pearson voting in opposition.
 
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 4, 2011 inspection report compiled by the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office during the June 28, 2011 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 4, 2011 inspection 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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby reaffirms its prior variances covering the stairwell deficiencies outlined in Item 1 of the April 4, 2011 inspection report complied by the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. Specifically, the Board hereby grants this Applicant, the Lincoln Freight Terminal, relief from all of the stairwell deficiencies outlined in Items 1(A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) of the April 4, 2011 inspection report, for as long as this Applicant maintains its current operations. Accordingly, any future change in ownership and/or operation will void this relief and require re-inspection by the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. 
2.	The Board hereby reaffirms its prior variances covering the egress deficiencies outlined in Item 2 of the April 4, 2011 inspection report complied by the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. Specifically, the Board hereby grants this Applicant, the Lincoln Freight Terminal, relief from all of the egress deficiencies outlined in Item 2 of the April 4, 2011 inspection report, for as long as this Applicant maintains its current operations. Accordingly, any future change in ownership and/or operation will void this relief and require re-inspection by the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. 
3.	The Board hereby reaffirms its prior variances allowing egress through the overhead door as outlined in Item 3 of the April 4, 2011 inspection report complied by the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. Specifically, the Board hereby grants this Applicant, the Lincoln Freight Terminal, relief to egress through the overhead door as outlined in item 3 of the April 4, 2011 inspection report, for as long as this Applicant maintains its current operations. Accordingly, any future change in ownership and/or operation will void this relief and require re-inspection by the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. 
4.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 of the April 4, 2011 inspection report by replacing the cited sprinkler heads to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office.
5.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 of the April 4, 2011 inspection report by repairing and/or replacing the cited fusible links to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office.
6.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance, of thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, to correct Deficiency 6 by repairing the cited fire door assembly, and replacing the cited bricks, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshals Office. 
7.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance, of thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, to correct Deficiency 7 by replacing the cited horizontal sliding fire door, in the fourth floor center corridor, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshals 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)].