The above captioned case was reviewed by a subcommittee of the Board on February l2, 2002 at l:00  p.m.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Fang, and Filippi were present. The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Kevin Murphy of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Fang to recommend that the Applicant be granted the relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
	
Subsequently, this matter was reviewed by the full Board on February l9, 2002.  At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Fang, Filippi, O’Connell and Burlingame were present.  A motion was thereupon made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Fang to adopt the subcommittee’s recommendation as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 30, 2001 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal during the February l2, 2002 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 30, 2001 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency, 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.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1-9.	It is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiencies #l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal’s Office, within sixty (60) days from the date of this Decision.

10. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Sections 30-2.l.l and 5-l.5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing headroom (ceiling height) of the lower level of this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that the average headroom is approximately 7’2”.  It is the further understanding and direction of the Board that there shall be no occupancy of the lower level of this facility and that the lower level shall be utilized for related storage and utilities only.  In light of the above, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.

11. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Sections 30-2.7 and 5-7.l in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited exit discharge from the lower level of this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that there shall be no occupancy of the lower level and that the Department of Environmental Management has restricted the Applicant’s ability to correct this deficiency to the satisfaction of the State Marshal’s Office.

12. During the February l2, 2002 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought to maintain a glass door within the corridor of this facility.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a glass door within the corridor equipped with an approved hold-open device and provided with domestically supplied sprinkler heads on either side of the door or, as an alternative plan of action, the Applicant may provide segregation of the corridor by utilizing an approved solid core wood door maintaining an approximate fire rating of twenty (20) minutes also equipped with a hold-open device but not required to have domestic sprinkler coverage.  In any event, the Applicant is hereby given a time variance of sixty (60) days in which to provide the approved separation of the corridor at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal’s Office, by utilizing one of the above two options.

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.

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 Board’s Decision, shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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 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.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)].

This decision was mailed on 5-08-02.