The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 20, 2001 at l:00 p.m.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, Richard and Filippi were present.   The fire service was not represented at this hearing.  However, the Applicant produced a November l, 2001 letter from the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office indicating that the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office had no objection to the granting of variances for this building.  Accordingly, the Board proceeded upon this assumption.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT
		
It is the understanding of the Board that the only deficiency within this mercantile facility is the installation of a five-ton furnace/air-conditioning unit in the basement area without approved separation.  The Applicant has agreed to provide domestically supplied sprinkler head coverage over this unit in lieu of separation.  By letter dated November l, 2001 the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office indicated that it had no objection to the variances being granted for this building.

Any deficiency, understood by the Board, to have been corrected which is not so 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. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Life Safety Code Section 24-321 in order to allow the Applicant to install the cited five-ton furnace/air-conditioning unit with approved sprinkler coverage. Specifically, the Applicant shall not be required to enclose or segregate this unit.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.

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 within 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 1-09-02.