The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 16, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Walker, Pearson, Burlingame and Jackson were present.  Commissioners Thornton and Blackburn recused themselves from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Timothy Lutz and Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Booth to approve the first four (4) items on the June 4, 2013 plan of action developed by the Applicants engineer.  The parties were directed to return on August 27, 2013 to address the fifth item listed on the June 4, 2013 plan of action report, if necessary.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a June 4, 2013 plan of action developed by the Applicants engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc.  The above plan of action was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the July 16, 2013 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 4, 2013 plan of action as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, 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 understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  During the July 16, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had upgraded the sprinkler and fire alarm systems of this facility.  The Board was further advised that there were several listed areas in this facility where the exit remoteness exceeded the code requirements.  The Board, however, was further provided with a performance based analysis by the Applicants engineer which excepts it.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.5.1.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited exit remoteness throughout this facility.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of section 39.2.5.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited common path of travel throughout this facility, as outlined in the June 4, 2013 report.  
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 39.2.5.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing dead end corridor conditions as outlined in item 3 of the Applicants June 4, 2013 plan of action report.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.5.1.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain egress through adjoining rooms as outlined in item 4 of the June 4, 2013 plan of action report.
	5.  The Board hereby defers action on item 5 and directs the parties to return on August 27, 2013 for further review of this item, if necessary.

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 Applicants 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 Boards 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 Boards 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)].