The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Sylvester, Jackson, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  Commissioner Burlingame recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioners Jackson and Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  This decision is amended to reflect Commissioner Burlingames recusal from consideration of this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a June 20, 2011 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the August 9, 2011 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 20, 2011 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, 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.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 by properly performing fire drills quarterly on each shift.
	2.  The Board hereby reaffirms its original variance granted in file number 930137 in order to allow the Applicant to continue to maintain the cited elevator hoistway without a sprinkler head and heat detector.  In reaffirming this variance, the Board notes that the original conditions continue to apply.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3.
	4.  The Board hereby reaffirms its variance in file number 930137 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited ceiling space without heat detection pursuant to the conditions outlined in the original decision.
	5.  The Board notes that smoke detection was not originally required for this facility, and therefore shall allow the Applicant to utilize the existing approved exception outlined in section 13.7.1.1.1 for this facility.  Accordingly, smoke detection shall not be required beyond the existing detection.

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)].