The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 18, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Richard, O’Connell, Coutu, Filippi and Burlingame were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal’s Office and Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Michalczyk of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Coutu 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 November 30, 2001 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence and State Fire Marshal’s Office during the March 18, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 30, 2001 inspection 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.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of the Life Safety Code section 6-5.3.1.2 and 6-5.3.1.5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the textile material wall finish within this facility provided the Applicant fully sprinkler this facility.  Accordingly, as a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide this facility with an approved system of sprinklers within 120 days of the date of this decision.  Finally, the Board shall maintain this as an open file until the Applicant has fully reviewed any remaining deficiencies in this facility with the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.

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)].


This decision was mailed on 6-24-03.