The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 22, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Evans, Filippi, Pearson and Burlingame were present.   The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal and Chief of Inspections William Howe of the Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Evans to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the May 22, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that during renovations of this building, it was determined that the building maintained an existing duct shaft which had less than a ½ hour fire rating. The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant has been able to provide fire-safing between the existing duct and floor opening at the first floor level through the access panels. The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant’s contractor has installed fire dampers and fire-safing at the second floor level and also constructed a 2-hour shaft-wall partition around that portion of the duct up to the roof. Finally, the Board was advised and finds that there is a municipally-connected fire alarm system in this building and that all other fire code deficiencies shall be corrected by the Applicant. 
	
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 section 6-2.4.4(c) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing shaft construction on the first floor of this facility in accordance with the safeguards outlined above. In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall make the above corrections and that this facility is further protected by a municipally-connected fire alarm system. 

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 6-22-01.