The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioners Sylvester and Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the August 9, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the subject facility is in the process of being renovated.  The Board was further advised and finds that the State Fire Marshals Office encountered a problem with one of the exit stairwells.  Specifically, the Board was advised and finds that the elevator servicing this facility is located in the same shaft as the exit stairwell and opens directly inside the protected stairwell on all levels.  The Board further finds that this has existed for the life of the property.  The Board further finds that the State Fire Marshals Office is of the opinion that this is a structural hardship with no easy solution available.  Finally, the Board was advised and finds that the State Fire Marshals Office therefore has no objection to a variance being granted.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Life Safety Code Chapter 9 Section 9.4.7 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing elevator within this existing cited stairwell of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that by letter dated June 17, 2011, the State Fire Marshals Office had no objection to the granting of this relief.  The Board notes that this position was reaffirmed by the State Fire Marshals Office during the August 9, 2011 hearing on this matter.

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)].