The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 16, 2001 at l:00 p.m.  At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, Coutu, Burlingame, Filippi, Newbrook, Evans and O’Connell.  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 Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Evans to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  

FINDING OF FACT
		
The Board finds that this facility is a fourteen- (l4) story high rise for the elderly.  It is a type 2B construction and was built in l97l.  The existing facility has a community room and an adjacent kitchen located on the first floor.  The Applicant is planning to expand the food service by providing three (3) meals a day to some of the residents.  This has required the Applicant to expand and construct a new 2,9l2 square foot dining room addition and an expanded kitchen within the existing building to a full commercial operation.  The Applicant’s plan requires that the kitchen be located within the existing building with thirteen (l3) floors of apartments located directly above.  The Board finds that due to the existing conditions, venting the exhaust hoods vertically would be prohibited.  Accordingly, the Applicant has requested a variance to allow the ductwork to penetrate an existing two- (2) hour fire rated wall in accordance with the Applicant’s exhibit in appendix D of its application.  Finally, the Board finds that all ductwork should be welded and wrapped and installed in accordance with NFPA 96 to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The only issue before the Board is whether the Applicant should be granted a variance from the provisions of NFPA 96 Section 4-l.l to allow penetration of the firewall.  Finally, the Board finds that the fire alarm panel of this facility shall be updated to present day codes and that the ductwork shall be sealed off in the firewall in accordance with manufacturer specifications.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA-96  Section 4-1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to penetrate the firewall within this facility with the cited ductwork.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to seal any gap within the firewall in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

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)]