The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 31, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Richard, Filippi, Pearson, Jasparro and Jackson were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Richard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with those items listed in a July 5, 2007 plan of action developed by Hughes Engineering to correct the deficiencies discovered by the Providence Fire Marshal's office during a compliance inspection of this facility.  The Board notes that this was a new construction project, and in the future, the Board expects such projects to be in full compliance with the code.  While the Board is granting relief in this particular case, the Board is also placing all contractors on notice that any similar requests for approval in the future may be denied and the Applicant may be ordered to bring the facility into full compliance with the code.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that, with the exception of the relief requested herein, the remaining facility is in complete compliance with the code.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 7.1.5.1 and 7.1.5.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing clear height of the parking garage ceilings within this facility, in conjunction with the proposed alternative, as outlined in the Hughes Engineering letter of July 5, 2007.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8.3.5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the oversized metal electrical panel and tel/data boxes within the cited one-hour fire resistance rated unit demising walls, in conjunction with the Applicants proposed alternative of utilizing 3M Interam E-5 Series Mat per the engineering judgment provided by 3M as outlined in more detail in the July 5, 2007 letter of the Applicants engineer.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8.2.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the engineers proposed alternative to the U420 demising wall construction at the columns of this facility, as outlined in the July 5, 2007 engineering report.  It is the understanding of the Board that the bracing would be tied back to the concrete column in these areas.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8.2.3.1 as it relates to the U420 demising wall construction at the bathroom walls in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the proposed alternative as outlined in the July 5, 2007 engineering letter.

Note:	The above relief is limited only to those areas that have been enclosed and not those areas in which the Applicant was able to provide the approved bracing.

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)].