The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 9, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Pearson, Coutu, Filippi, Preiss, Wahlberg, and OConnell were present.  The fire service was not represented during this hearing.  However, the Applicant advised the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office had no objection.  Accordingly, the case went forward in the absence of the Providence Fire Marshal.  The Decision was then made contingent upon the approval of the Providence Fire Marshal.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein pending approval by the Providence Fire Marshal.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a December 8, 2001 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the July 9, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 8, 2001 report 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 defined in Section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1-12.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	13.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Life Safety Code Section 24-3.5.1 in order to allow the Applicant not to maintain an approved UL listed fire rated separation between the mercantile and the residential occupancy of this facility.  Accordingly, this facility would therefore not have to be evaluated as a four- (4) story mercantile building for the purposes of sprinkler requirements.  However, if in the future the Applicant chooses to occupy the entire building as a mercantile occupancy, he shall at that time be subject to the sprinkler requirements of this code.  In granting this variance it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office is in agreement with the Applicants plan of action.
	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.  
	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 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.  
	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)].