The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on June 25, 2002. A Decision, outlining a plan of action, was thereupon issued on August 30, 2002. The Applicant subsequently appealed the August 30, 2002 decision to the Sixth District Court. During an October 23, 2002 pre-trial conference with Chief Judge DeRobbio, the Applicant and the Board were asked by the Chief Judge whether alternative fire safety measures could be substituted in this case. Pursuant to the Chief Judge’s direction, representatives of the parties met to address the possibility of alternative fire safety safeguards in the area of stairway and conveyor belt serving the basement of this facility. 

A follow-up hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2002 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Evans, Newbrook, Richard, O’Connell, Preiss, Wahlberg, Pearson, Filippi and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Members Preiss and Richard.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact, outlined in the August 30, 2002 Decision in file no. 020008, as its preliminary findings of fact in this case. Additionally, the Board now finds that providing a fire rated separation at the bottom of the basement stair and conveyor could possibly interfere with the day-to-day operation of the Applicant’s business. The Board further finds that the Applicant has agree to segregate the occupied mercantile portion of this facility from the generally unoccupied storage area with the installation of approved fire rated doors. Finally, the Applicant has agreed to provide domestically-supplied sprinkler heads in the area of the basement stairs and conveyor to protect these areas to the satisfaction of the fire marshal’s office. It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies and directives of the Board shall be completed by the Applicant within ninety (90) days of the date of this Decision.	
	
Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be 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 amends Item 6 of its original Decision in File No. 020008 in order to remove the condition of enclosing the basement stairway and substitute the Applicant’s plan of action to provide the basement stairs and conveyor with an approved system of domestically supplied sprinkler heads. Specifically, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.17-4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing rating of the stairway between the basement and the first floor of this facility. In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the cited stairway and conveyor with approved domestically-supplied sprinkler coverage installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the fire marshal’s office within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision. 

2. The Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional ninety (90) days, from the date of this Decision, in which to install the fire alarm and other fire protection systems required by the original Decision in file no. 020008.   

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)].