The above-captioned case was scheduled for a hearing before a subcommittee of the Board on April 27, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Preiss and Jasparro were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Richard Silva and Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Dias to recommend to the full Board that it grant the Applicant the relief outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  
The above recommendations were thereupon presented to the full Board on May 4, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Walker, Jasparro, Preiss, Blackburn and Richard were present.  A motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro.  The motion passed with Commissioner Preiss abstaining from the vote.  Accordingly, the subcommittee determination has the status of a full Board decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board notes that in September of 2009, the Applicant appeared before the Fire Board and a decision was thereupon rendered in file number 090271.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has requested that the file be reopened and that a variance be considered from the provisions of RILSC section 7.2.1.4.3.  Specifically, it was originally determined that a new door be installed on the second floor.  However, if this door were to swing in the direction of exit travel, it would conflict with the existing door serving the adjacent tenant space and potentially impede the occupants traveling down the exit stairway.  Accordingly, the Applicant is seeking relief and the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection to the relief requested for the second floor door.  The Board was further advised that there may be other outstanding issues for this facility.  However, in light of the fact that the Applicant did not apply for relief and the matters were not properly scheduled, the Board directed the parties to review these additional items and return, if necessary, on May 11, 2010 to address these items.  However, the Board notes that the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal's office must first reduce these items to writing and provide the Board with sufficient notice of the request to proceed on May 11, 2010 in order to allow the Board to comply with the Open Meetings Law provisions.  
(Note:  Subsequently, the above May 11, 2010 follow-up hearing date was changed to May 25, 2010 at the request of the Providence Fire Marshal's office, and agreed to by Mr. LaRose of Hughes Associates.)

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.1.4.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the proposed swing of the second floor door serving the elevator vestibule, and not to re-swing this door in the direction of egress travel.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that this area would have two (2) alternative exits, and that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	With regard to any additional issues, the Board notes that the Applicant shall reduce these issues to writing and provide the Board with sufficient notice of their intent to have these issues heard prior to the tentative May 11, 2010 hearing (now rescheduled to May 25, 2010 as noted above).
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 submitting a written appeal of the above subcommittee recommendations to the entire Fire Board for review, pursuant to Board Rule 6-2-9.  The Applicant shall thereupon be scheduled for hearing before the full Board of Appeal & Review.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this decision (RIGL 42-35-15(c)).