The above captioned case was scheduled and heard by the Board on October 29, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Preiss, Filippi, OConnell, Richard, Coutu, Wahlberg and Newbrook were present.  The fire service was not represented during the October 29, 2002 hearing on this matter.  However, Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Silva of the Providence Fire Marshals Office called and advised the Board that he had no objection to the requested relief in light of the fact that this building is fully sprinkled and maintained a municipally connected fire alarm system.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
	The Decision herein is reported pursuant to a review of the audiotape of these proceedings.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a September 26, 2002 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board and the Applicant during the October 29, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 26, 2002 plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings such as correction of a deficiency 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.	During the October 29, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought a variance to maintain the existing center stairway unenclosed between the first and second floors of this facility.  As a condition of this variance, the Applicant agreed to maintain full sprinkler coverage and a municipally connected fire alarm system within this facility.  The Applicant further advised the Board that the above stairway would be enclosed at the basement level and that there are thirty-two (32) occupants within this facility.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.17-4(a) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing center stairway unenclosed between the first and second floors of this facility pursuant to the above conditions.
	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.  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)].