The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 15, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Walker, Jasparro, Dias, Filippi and Richard were present.  Commissioners Preiss and Blackburn recused themselves from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Lutz, Sr. of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioners Dias and Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  Commissioner Richard was required to leave halfway through this hearing, and accordingly did not vote.  However, the motion was unanimously approved by the remaining members.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 22, 2008 variance request report compiled and submitted by the Applicants engineers, Hughes Associates Inc.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the July 15, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the attached May 22, 2008 variance request report 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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  During the July 15, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that because this is a Type III (200) building, the continuity of fire-resistant rated construction would be difficult to achieve.  The Board was further advised that it is the Applicants intent to comply with these provisions to the greatest extent practicable and that the Applicant and the Applicants engineer are seeking a variance in order to grant the Providence Fire Department the authority to permit relief from the strict application of the continuity of construction provisions based on specific on-site conditions that may arise during construction.  
	In light of the fact that the Providence Fire Marshal's office had no objection to the Applicants proposal, the Board hereby grants the Providence Fire Marshal's office the authority to grant relief for the continuity of construction as these issues are brought to his attention within this facility.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8.6.9.2.1 in order to allow the Providence Fire Marshal's office to consider the enclosed spaces below the mezzanine of this facility as open spaces for purposes of determining the size of the space in which the mezzanine is located.  In addition, the Board directs the Applicant to comply with the safeguards outlined in the May 22, 2008 variance request letter submitted as part of this application and attached to this decision.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	3.  Pursuant to the request of the parties, the Board shall maintain this as an open file in the event either the Applicant or the Providence Fire Marshal's office wish to return to address additional items or seek clarification.

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)].