The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 24, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Richard, Pearson and Filippi were present.  Chairman Farrell and Commissioner Preiss recused themselves from this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the June 24, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant sought relief from the provisions of section 7-2.12.2.3.  Specifically, the Applicant sought to maintain the actual width of the current CMU stairwell at three foot eight inches (3’8”) and three foot ten inches (3’10”) as opposed to the required forty eight inches (48”) for an area of refuge.  The Board was further advised and finds that the plans for this stairwell had been submitted to and approved by the Governor’s Commission on Disabilities on June 17, 2003.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant shall provide the cited stairwell with approved sprinkler coverage at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Building Official. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7-2.12.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain existing stair widths of 3’8” and 3’10” instead of 48” as required for an area of refuge in this CMU stairwell.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the above stairwell plans have been approved by the Governor’s Commission on Disabilities on June 17, 2003 and that the Providence Fire Marshal’s office has no objection in light of the approval by the Governor’s Commission on Disabilities.

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)].