The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 5, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Blackburn, Walker and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Frank Dunton of the Woonsocket Fire Marshals Office and Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the original decision covering this complex in file number 100041.  The Board hereby incorporates its decision in file number 100041 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that in item 15 of the decision, the Board directed the Applicant to submit a report from a structural engineer outlining the issues raised in item 15 of the original inspection report of this facility.  The parties have returned with the report and advised that there may be a question as to the thickness of the roof slab of this facility.  Upon review, the Board determined that it would allow equivalent construction and that the roof slab appeared to be sufficient to provide the required separation.  The State Fire Marshals Office had no objection to this determination.  Accordingly, along with the original decision in this matter, the Board hereby incorporates the January 31, 2011 Landmark Medical Center Construction Type Analysis submitted by the Applicant as its follow-up findings of fact.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1-14.  The Board hereby reaffirms items 1-14 of its original decision in file number 100041.
	15.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing equivalent construction of the cited concrete roof slab of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	16-49.  The Board hereby reaffirms its action in items 16-49 of its original decision in file number 100041.

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)].