The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 31, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, O'Connell, Evans, Richard, Pearson, Coutu, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Evans and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the October 31, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought amendment to the Board's original decision covering this facility as outlined in file no. 990027.  Accordingly, the Board adopts its original findings of fact in file no. 990027.  The Board further finds that the Applicant inadvertently deleted required wired glass and installed clear safety glass in the area of the basement laboratories which view the communicating space.  The Applicant further provided this facility with sidewall mounted sprinkler heads.  The Applicant is now before the Board requesting to be allowed to maintain the above installed systems.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been 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 in order to allow the Applicant to substitute the newly installed clear safety glass in lieu of the wired glass originally mandated, by the Board, for this facility.  The Board further grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain sidewall sprinkler coverage, as installed, in accordance with the Applicant’s fire model equivalency.  The granting these variances, the Board directs the Applicant to maintain this area free of all storage and other combustibles.

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)].