The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 20, 2001 at l:00 p.m.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, Richard and Filippi were present.   The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a December l0, 2000 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the November 20, 200l hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December l0, 2000 report as its initial findings of fact. 
	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.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.


CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Sections 26-2.5.l, 5-5.l.3 and l-3.7 in order to allow the Applicant to subdivide the existing tenant space in this facility into two (2) separate tenant spaces and to allow this subdivision to be reviewed as if the entire building was fully sprinklered.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that this facility is currently 90 sprinklered and involved in a program, which will eventually provide l00 sprinkler coverage.  In light of the above, the Providence Fire Marshals Office has determined that the Applicants request is reasonable.

2-8.	It is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiencies 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.

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.

     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.  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.  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 changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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.

	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 within the Sixth Division of the District Court.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)]