The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 30, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Richard, Pearson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Daniel Isles of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner  Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
This matter was previously before the Board on September 30, 2003 at which time the Board directed the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal to explore the alternatives available for the pressure requirements for the standpipe systems within this complex.  The Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office have now returned to the Board and requested to be allowed to use the standards under the state rehabilitation code to achieve a 65 psi within the standpipe system with the assistance of a pumper truck.  The Providence Fire Marshal’s Office had no objection to the requested relief.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the rehabilitation code to conduct the pressure test of the standpipe systems within this facility.  Specifically, the standpipe systems within this complex shall at least have 65 psi with a pumper truck.

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)].