The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 13, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame, Coutu, Filippi, O’Connell and Pearson 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 Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds that this facility was originally an industrial building.  The most recent plans for this facility call for the creation of approximately 220 apartment units along with a parking garage.  The units and the garage would be joined by a bridge that is approximately forty eight feet by eleven feet (48’x11’).  The Board further finds that the Applicant plans to fire rate the bridge for two (2) hours with two-hour separation doors at each and.  The Board further finds that it shall be sprinklered.  The Applicant is requesting relief from the provisions of section 7.2.4.4.7 which requires that there be ¾ hour protection of all door and window assemblies within 120 inches of any new bridge.  The Board further finds that the above requirement does not apply to existing bridges.  In light of the fact that this is a new bridge joining existing structures, the Applicant has requested relief from the above sections in light of the construction and other protection provided this bridge.  The Providence Fire Marshal’s office has no objection to the requested relief.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.4.4.7 in order to allow the Applicant not to have to provide ¾ hour fire protection on the door and window assemblies within 120 inches of the new bridge attaching the existing portions of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal’s office has no objection in light of the protection the Applicant shall provide this bridge as outlined above.

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)].