The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 11, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Preiss and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of June 11, 2002 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the State Fire Marshals Office and the Applicant during the June 11, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 11, 2002 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 defined in Section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1-6.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal.
	7.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 7 by temporarily sealing off the elevator shaft of this facility and bringing it into compliance within sixty (60) days from the date of this Decision.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the cited elevator does not serve the floor, which is proposed for occupancy.
	8-9.	It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 8 and 9 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal, after the elevator has been completed.
	10.	It is the understanding of the Board that the fire alarm system within this facility, at the time of this hearing, was not fully supervised.  The Board directs the Applicant to correct this deficiency by providing the fire alarm system with full supervision within sixty (60) days of the date of this Decision.  The Board directs the Applicant from, in the interim, to instruct its supervisory staff to phone any incidents in to 911.
	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.  
	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.  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.  
	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)].