The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 21, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Jackson, Blackburn, Burlingame and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Joseph Michalczyk and Christopher Dillon of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the objection of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 10, 2013 letter prepared by the Applicants representative and a May 13, 2013 response prepared by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above April 10, 2013 variance request along with the May 13, 2013 response of the Providence Fire Marshals Office were utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the May 21, 2013 hearing on this matter.  In addition, the Board had before it an October 17, 2012 engineering report compiled by Michael J. DiMeo, P.E., covering this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 17, 2012 engineering report along with the April 10, 2013 variance request and the May 13, 2013 response of the Providence Fire Marshals Office 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 understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited two (2) small unenclosed stairways conditioned upon the installation of an eighteen-inch smoke curtain extending from the ceilings surrounding these stairways to provide a temporary smoke barrier allowing for the rapid egress of this facility.  The above eighteen-inch smoke curtain shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office and it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection to the requested relief.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the non-rated solid wooden doors along the buildings central means of egress exit passageways.  The Board further grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited glass doors and any additional glass panels within the means of egress, conditioned upon the Applicants providing approved concentrated sprinkler coverage directly on either side of the cited glass, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  In granting this relief, it is also the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing location and configuration of the cited stairwells within the means of egress and that they be allowed to maintain the existing remoteness.  Again, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection on the basis of structural hardship.
	4.  During the May 21, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Applicant additionally requested that it be relieved of sprinkler coverage in the elevator shafts and machine rooms of this facility.  The Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshals Office had no objection to this relief.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant not to provide sprinkler coverage in the elevator shafts and machine rooms of this facility.

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)].