The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on December 7, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Jasparro, Pearson and Filippi were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of this case and he left the room. 
The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshals Office, Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Peter Marietti of the Warwick Fire Marshals Office and Chief John E. Thomas of the T.F. Green Airport Fire Department.  Mr. Richard Langseth appeared as a concerned member of the public and, in the absence of an objection by the above parties, was afforded an opportunity to present testimony to the Board. 
A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein and to further direct the parties to return for an onsite review of the subject facility to address the concerns raised by Mr. Langseth during the hearing.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in its September 21, 2007 Decision, in File Number 070236, as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that the purpose of this latest appeal was to address the placement of portable fire extinguishers throughout the general public parking areas of this facility.  Specifically, the Board finds that it is the position of the Applicants Engineer/Project Manager that the above portable fire extinguishers would potentially endanger the public.  The Board finds that the Applicant believes that the general public is not trained in the use of the extinguishers and that the Applicant is further concerned that any attempt to extinguish a fire could result in both a delayed evacuation and a delayed notification of the fire department. 
The Board further finds that, by letter dated July 6, 2010, the Chief of the T.F. Green Airport Fire Department is in agreement with the Applicants position and in support of the requested relief in the general public parking area as opposed to the fueling stations or the office complex located in the garage itself.  The Board further finds that the State Fire Marshals Office is also in support of the requested relief noting the general construction of the structure and the standpipe system serving the garage. 
The Board finds that during the hearing, Mr. Langseth addressed a significant but unrelated matter to the original variance request.  Specifically, the Board finds that Mr. Langseth identified an inside room within the complex that he identified as being utilized for the public parking of multiple vehicles with apparently only one narrow means of egress and limited ventilation.  The Board further finds that Mr. Langseth advised it that the inside room he had identified could be potentially blocked off thereby creating a hazardous condition.  In light of the above, the Board directed the parties to return to the subject complex with Mr. Langseth to identify the subject inside room and to determine whether it currently complies with the fire code and, if not, how it could be brought into compliance with the fire code. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 7.2.4.3.1, 7.3.1.2 and 9.7.1.1, as these provisions relate to the placement of portable fire extinguishers in the public parking areas of the subject complex, in order to specifically allow the Applicant to eliminate portable fire extinguishers in the public parking areas at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office. 
The Board notes that this variance is based upon the non-combustible construction of the public parking area, the installation of standpipes in this area, and the above arguments made by the Applicant, and supported by the fire service, to ensure rapid evacuation by the public and prompt notification of the fire service in the event of an emergency.  Finally, in granting this variance, the Board notes that the fire service was in support of the requested relief.
2.	In light of the concerns raised by Mr. Langseth, the Board directs the parties to accompany Mr. Langseth to the complex to view the inside room and to specifically determine whether this area currently complies with the fire code and, if not, how it could be brought into compliance with the fire code.  The Board appreciates Mr. Langseth taking the time to bring this matter to the attention of both the Board and the fire service. Finally, the Board notes that this file shall continue to remain open.

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)].