The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 25, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Blackburn, Richard, Jackson, Preiss, Walker, Jasparro, OConnell and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Richard Fournier and Timothy Lutz Sr. of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Pearson.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an October 27, 2006 inspection 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 March 25, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 27, 2006 inspection 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 
	1-8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's Office.
	9.  The Board notes that for several months, the Applicant has been working with the Providence Fire Marshal's office in order to alleviate the condition of trash accumulation within the egress system of this facility.  During the March 25, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Applicant presented the Board with a floor plan entitled Scheme A in which he proposed the creation of a 68 x 37 enclosed space within the egress system leading to Washington Street.  The proposed enclosure would be further provided with a door that is swung out into the exit passageway.  During the hearing, the Applicant and the Board agreed that the internal space could be reduced in order to accommodate a single 36 x 36 ninety-four gallon trash container.  The Board notes that this would reduce the storage area by approximately 50.  The Board and the Applicant further agreed that the door servicing the area could be installed on the Washington Street side of the enclosure to open directly towards the exit, thereby eliminating obstruction of the exit way.  The Board and the Applicant further agreed that the door would have to be smoke-tight and that the enclosure would be provided with a sprinkler head.  The Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal's office is on record not supporting this proposed segregation of the accumulated trash from the egress system of this facility.  However, the rated separation of the trash from the egress system, as outlined above, appears to be the only viable alternative to this Applicant in light of the physical restraints he has in the operations of his business.
	Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the proposed trash storage area as modified above, in the area designated floor plan Scheme A.  The Board notes the objection of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.

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)].