The above captioned case was previously heard by the Board and a Decision was rendered on November 26, 2002.  A question regarding the application of that Decision was presented to the Board members on January 14, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Filippi, Newbrook, Richard, Pearson, Coutu, Preiss, Wahlberg, and OConnell were present.  The question was presented in the form of a letter dated December 10, 2002 from the Applicant.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 14, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had a question as to the application of part of item 1 in the original Decision in this matter.  Specifically, the Applicant advised the Board by letter dated December 10, 2002, that his understanding of the Boards action is that the wall board system in RGBs original design had been approved by the Board and that the only action item was for the gypsum board to be installed in the unoccupied floors prior to their occupancy.  It was the determination of the Board that this was a correct understanding of item 1 of the Decision in the above captioned case.
	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 clarifies the original item 1 in File No. 020197 as follows:  the mineral wool and gypsum board system in RGBs original design had been approved by the Board in its Decision dated November 26, 2002.  The only action item resulting from this Decision was for the gypsum board to be installed in unoccupied floors prior to their occupancy.  There was no retrofit requirement within this Decision.

	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)].