The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on July 11, 2000  at 1:30 P.M. At that time, a comprehensive plan of action was developed for the facility. The written Decision of the Board was mailed on July 27, 2000.  The Applicant thereupon requested that his file be reopened and that he be allowed a hearing on items 19, 22b and 28 of the original decision. The Applicant further requested additional relief on a new issue involving a trash chute offset below the second floor. The second hearing on this case was scheduled for March 13, 2001. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, O'Connell, Richard, Evans and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
This matter was previously before the Board and decision was issued in file No. 200151.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact as its initial findings of fact in this case.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies, within this facility, have been corrected by the Applicant.
	
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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
During the March 13, 2001 rehearing of this matter, the Board was only asked to address and/or clarify items 19, 20, 22b and 28 of the original decision.  Accordingly, the numbers appearing below, and the relief granted therein, shall clarify and/or supersede those same numbered items in the original decision.

19. By way of clarification, when the Board granted relief in item 12(b) to allow the Applicant to utilize the floor-to-ceiling construction as a two-hour assembly, it was the intent of the Board to allow the shaft construction, referenced in item 19, to rest on top of the two-hour assemblies as an equivalency for the two-hour construction.

20. The Board hereby grants variances from the provisions of sections 18-5.4, 7-5.2 and NFPA 82, 3-2.2.2 in order to allow the proposed trash chute to maintain an approximate offset of approximately twenty-four degrees. In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the Providence Fire Marshal with additional verification of the strength of the chute at this angle.

22(B) In the original decision in file no. 200151, the Board directed the Applicant to consult with a structural engineer in order to provide the sprinkler system of this facility with approved earthquake protection.  The Board further directed that this file would remain open in order to review a finalized plan for earthquake protection.  
	
During the March 13, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had consulted with an engineer and that all risers in this facility shall be sleeved and that the sprinkler pipes shall be hung within six inches of the ceiling. However, the Applicant advised that he could not attach the system to the structural steel without destroying the terra cotta protection of that steel. 
	
In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 13 section 4-14.4.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to provide the sprinkler system of this facility with the limited seismic protection outlined above. Specifically, the Applicant shall provide all risers in this facility with sleeves and assure that the sprinkler pipes shall be hung within six inches of the ceiling. In light of the unique nature of the terra cotta encased steel of this facility, the Applicant shall not have to attach the sprinkler system to the steel in those areas where the terra cotta protection would have to be destroyed to accomplish this attachment. This variance shall not be considered as a precedent for earthquake protection and such requests shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. Finally, as a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office with a stamped engineer’s letter confirming the Applicant’s position in this case.

28. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 5-2.1.3 in order to maintain an existing slope of 1 to 12, from the sidewalk to the door, and approximately 1 to 20 beyond.  This variance is granted on the basis of structural hardship. In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to install a power actuated door opener, activated from both sides and connected to the emergency supply system.  

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].