The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 4, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, Filippi and OConnell 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 Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner 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 a September 22, 2005 plan of action prepared by the Robinson Green Beretta Corporation.  The above plan of action was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the April 4, 2006 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 22, 2005 plan of action 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, is understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  During the April 4, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that although this building is not required to be protected by automatic sprinklers, the Applicant is planning to do so with the exception of the main banking lobby area and the attic above, as well as the main vault and safety deposit vaults space.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant was proposing additional protection in those areas where sprinkler coverage would be deleted by providing linear heat detection in the attic above the main lobby and beam smoke detection in the high ceiling area of the lobby.  The detection systems would be installed in conformance with NFPA 72.  In addition, the Applicant shall provide single station smoke detection to be installed in both the main band and safety deposit vaults in place of sprinkler coverage.  The Providence Fire Marshal appeared and advised the Board that the areas in question were generally not accessible space.  The Applicant further advised the Board that the installation of sprinkler coverage in some of these areas would be further complicated due to OSHA regulations covering confined spaces.
	In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 9.7.1.1 and 9.7.1.4 in order to allow this facility to be considered a fully sprinklered facility for the purposes of securing other relief under the code based on the status of a fully sprinklered building.  In granting this relief, the Board directs that the proposed additional fire alarm detection shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office and that any further fire alarm detection, deemed necessary by the Providence Fire Marshal, shall be provided within this facility.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 39.2.4.5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited single means of egress from the mezzanine with a business occupancy.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the existing path of travel from the furthest occupied space is greater than one hundred seven (107) feet and that the allowance for a fully sprinklered building would be a common path of travel that did not exceed one hundred (100) feet.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.7.2 in order more than fifty percent (50) of the required egress discharge into areas on the level of exit discharge.  The Board bases this variance on the construction of the area and its previous variance to allow this building to be considered fully sprinklered in accordance with the provisions of section 7.5.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.7.2 in order to allow the existing discharge from the open mezzanine through the level of exit discharge.  The Board notes in granting this variance that this facility shall be considered fully sprinklered and that any fire would be readily viewed from the mezzanine level.
	5.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.1.6.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain two (2) existing vaults, one (1) in the main banking lobby and one (1) in the safety deposit area with controlled access doors that comply with the federal banking regulations for vault doors.  The Board notes that both vaults are time-lock controlled and dual control is required to lock and unlock the vault doors.  In granting this variance on the basis of security hardship, the Board directs the Applicant to provide both vaults with emergency phone and air supply installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	6.  During the April 4, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Providence Fire Marshal's office had not yet conducted a plan review for this facility.  However, in the event the Applicant seeks additional relief based on sprinkler coverage, this file shall remain open and the Applicant shall be allowed to return to have the Board review those items.

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)].