The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 6, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Coutu, O’Connell and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Silva of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a December 27, 2002 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the May 6, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 27, 2002 plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s 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.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #1 by providing approved remote shut-off switches on the cited furnaces within this facility installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.
	
2.  During the May 6, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that each of the cited heating units within the basement were less than one hundred sixty thousand (160,000) BTU input.  Accordingly, the Board finds that deficiency #2 is moot.
	
3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #3 by providing an approved means of escape at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.
	
4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-2(e) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of the cited exits in conjunction with an approved local fire alarm system.  This variance is based on structural hardship in the absence of an objection by the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.
	
5.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-2(f) and 23-28.16-6(c) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the recently installed double 5/8” sheetrock assemblies covering the egress systems of this facility.  This variance is granted in accordance with the Applicant’s agreement to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system.
	
6.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-5(a) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing egress system construction as outlined above.  The Board further grants a variance from the above provisions in order to allow the Applicant to maintain an access panel which shall remain locked and not granted access by the tenants.  The access panel shall maintain the same approximate rating as the walls.
	
7.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-6(a) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing swing of the cited doors.
	
8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #8 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.
	
9. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #9 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.
	
10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.
	
11.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #11 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  
	
Note that all deficiencies that have not yet been corrected shall be corrected prior to occupancy of this facility.

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)].