The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 17, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Jasparro, Preiss, Jackson, Walker, Filippi and Pearson were present.  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 Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings in file number R040008(A) as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that the Applicant had utilized the above Rehabilitation Board decision to install a waterproofing system on the subject facility.  The Board further finds that the original proposed waterproofing material was not a standard type asphalt that could be pumped from the ground to the roof.  The Board further finds that the viscosity of the proposed roofing material is extremely thick and that the material must be applied at a temperature of 350 degrees at the roof level.  The Board further finds that in order to accomplish this, the Applicant must utilize a special rooftop kettle with only a gravity feed outlet at the bottom of the kettle.  The Board further finds that the roofing material cannot be utilized below 300 degrees or above 375 degrees.  Finally, the Board finds that the flash point of the proposed roofing material is approximately 500 degrees.
	The Board finds that the Applicant successfully installed the above waterproofing system on the roof of the subject facility in 2004.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has now returned in order to repair a partial area of approximately one-third of the original roof.  The Board finds that when the original waterproofing material was applied, there was no sprinkler system, standpipe or fire pump in the building.  Accordingly, at that time the Providence Fire Marshal's office requested, and the Board granted, approval for a detail of two (2) firefighters with a charged hose to be maintained on-site throughout the process.  In light of the additional protection, and the limited use of this process for repairing the roof, it has been recommended to the Board that all future roof repair be allowed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  Finally, the Board finds that this particular process will be completed within one or two days.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to repair the cited roof of this building, now and at all future times, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office, with any additional safeguards deemed necessary by that office.  The Board notes that this relief shall be effective immediately and that the Applicant shall not have to reapply to the Board for future repair operations but rather secure the approval and direction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office for the future repairs.

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)].