The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 22, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Walker, Preiss, Blackburn, Richard and Pearson were present.  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 Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 22, 2008 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the July 22, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 22, 2008 plan review 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.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 13.2.2.2.1 and 7.2.1.4.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing in-swing of the gates in the courtyard of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board recognizes the fact that swinging the gates in the direction of egress travel could impede pedestrian traffic.  Further, as a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to leave the gates in the open position during all hours of occupancy.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 13.2.4.1 and 7.4.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a single means of egress from the third floor to the second floor of this facility.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the third floor occupancy is limited to two (2) people who work in this area and that the facility shall be further protected with a full sprinkler and fire alarm system.  Finally it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection in light of the fire safety features and the limited occupancy of this area.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 13.3.1 and 8.6.8.2(4) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain an open stairway for egress within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the existing doors shall be equipped with self-closers and sprinkler coverage should be placed on both sides of the doors with the exception of two (2) galleries on the second floor of this facility.
	4.  During the July 22, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from the headroom requirements within a new stairway of this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that the new stairway would be a non-required exit.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the requirements of table 7.2.2.2.1(a) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the headroom of the cited stairway within this facility.

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)].