The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the April 6, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this facility has two addresses.  The first is One Washington Avenue and the second is 305 Shipyard Street.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant seeks relief from the firefighter on duty requirement of the code.  Specifically, the potential occupancy of this facility exceeds one thousand (1,000) people and would automatically require one firefighter on duty during all periods of commercial occupancy.  However, the Applicant has advised the Board that for several athletic events, the actual occupancy of the building is substantially less than the potential maximum occupancy.  Accordingly, the Applicant has asked the Board to authorize the Providence Fire Marshal’s office to eliminate fire department details during periods in which this building will be occupied at substantially less than one thousand (1,000) people.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to authorize the Providence Fire Marshal’s office to limit or eliminate firefighter details during athletic events conducted at the above captioned facility where the occupant load would be substantially less than one thousand (1,000) people.  Such action by the Providence Fire Marshal’s office shall be based upon appropriate documentation submitted by the Applicant and meeting the approval of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  Finally, in the event that the Providence Fire Marshal’s office determines that the occupant loads are exceeding their original expectations, the Providence Fire Marshal’s office may re-institute firefighter details.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].