The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Moise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office and Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame. 

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a July 9, 2004 correspondence from Jack W. Dean, PE to Chairman George Farrell.  The above correspondence explained the nature of the project and further requested a series of variances in conjunction with the project.  The above correspondence was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State and Local Fire Marshals Office during the August 31, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 9, 2004 correspondence 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.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.10.4.3.6 in order to allow the Applicant not to capture the trauma and soil/clean utility elevators upon fire alarm initiation.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that several other elevators shall be captured upon fire alarm initiation in this building.  However, the hospital wishes to exclude the trauma elevator, servicing two (2) levels and the soil/clean utility elevator also servicing two (2) levels from being captured when the fire alarm initiation is done due to operational concerns.  The Board further notes that the fire service has no objection to granting of this request.
2.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.10.5.5 in order to allow the Applicant not to include flow switches on fire hose connections off of standpipes.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the fire service doesnt have an objection to this request.
3.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 13.8.10.5.10 and 13.8.10.5.10.1 in order not to include duct smoke detectors on returns of the air handling units.
4.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.10.4.3.3.5 in order to allow for the disconnection of the Davol Building smoke evacuation system.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the Davol Building was constructed in 1985 and was designed for high rise status.  At present, only the elevator lobby which attaches the existing ten (10) story main building is the only portion of Davol, which would be classified as high-rise.  Accordingly, the Applicant wishes to take the smoke evacuation system out of service at the present time rather than remove it.  The Board notes that the system shall be re-activated in the future if additional floors are added to this facility.
5.	The Board hereby authorizes the State and Local Fire Marshals to approve the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the parking garage only of the facility now and also to approve the remaining portion of this project as completed to the satisfaction of the State and Local Fire Marshals Offices for issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy.  The Board notes that no temporary certificate should extend beyond two (2) years except possibly the fire alarm system for the Davol Building.

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)].