The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 1, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Pearson, Burlingame, Evans and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Emmott of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Evans to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	A full description of this occupancy, along with the requested relief, is outlined in an August 21, 2002 letter submitted by the Applicant as part of the application in this case.  The above August 21, 2002 description was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Fire Marshals Office during the October 1, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the August 21, 2002 description 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.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 26-3.1.1 and 8-3.1 of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (1997 Edition), in order to allow the Applicant to install a twenty (20) minute rated, tempered glass wall, with communicating door, as a segment of the first floor wall between the stair tower and the main floor of this facility.  The above glass wall and door shall be further protected, on both sides, by a properly engineered, domestically supplied sprinkler heads.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that this facility is further protected by a municipally connected fire alarm system and that there shall be no residential occupancy.  The Board directs the Applicant to provide the above safeguards prior to occupancy.

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)].