The above-captioned case was originally assigned file number 080052 and heard by the Board.  The Applicant has now returned requesting that file number 080052 be reopened for the consideration of additional relief.  The above captioned case was most recently heard on September 8, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Preiss, Filippi, Richard, Jasparro, Dias, Pearson and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in file number 080052 as its initial finding of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that the Applicant is requesting that the file be reopened due to an apparent conflict between the Rhode Island Fire Safety Code 101, 2003 edition and the federal aviation administration publication AC/150/5390-2B(heliport design).  The Board further finds that the Applicant is preparing to install a helipad at 62 Dudley Street.  The Board further finds that the State Fire Marshal's office has indicated that the Life Safety Code requires guards and handrails on various components leading to the helipad.  The Board further finds that the FAA deems this to be a hazard around the landing area.  
	The Board finds that the Applicant has proposed to provide approved safety netting in this area at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal and to further limit the staff in the area.  In light of the above safeguards, the State Fire Marshal's office has no objection to the requested relief.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of the Life Safety Code requiring guards and handrails on the various components of the egress system leading to the helipad.  In granting this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide an approved safety net in the area of the helipad, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.  This variance is based upon the apparent conflict between the Life Safety Code and the FAA standards and the plan of action developed by the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal's office to provide a reasonable alternative to the guards and handrails.

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)].