The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 21, 1999 at 1:30 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Marciano and Commissioners Kozar, Richard, Pangborn, Wilder, and Burlingame were present.  A motion was made by commissioner Pangborn and seconded by Commissioner Kozar to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	During the September 21, 1999 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the applicant sought reconsideration of item 14A in File No. 970147A.  specifically, this item addressed the need to equip all stairways in this complex with additional approved twenty-six (26) inch handrails.  During the August 31, 1999 hearing on this matter, the City Fire Marshal agreed with the Applicant that this would not be necessary.  However, a final motion made on this Decision did not include an exemption for the twenty-six (26) inch handrail.  The Applicant has returned to the Board requesting that the matter be reconsidered and specifically approved to be allowed the exemption of the twenty-six (26) inch handrail during the temporary occupancy of this facility.
	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 amends deficiency 14A in order not to require the Applicant to provide this complex with additional approved twenty-six (26) inch handrails.  The Board notes that during the August 31, 1999 hearing on this matter, the Providence Fire Marshals Office had no objection to the deletion of the handrails as per Fire Marshal David Costa.
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 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)].