The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on April 8, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Preiss, OConnell, Walker, Jasparro, Pearson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioners Newbrook, Jackson and Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates as its original findings of fact a March 6, 2008 letter to the Chairman by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshal's office.  Specifically, the Board finds that the Providence Place mall currently has approximately 160 tenants with separate contracts for fire alarm testing.  The Board further finds that the adoption of section 13.8.10.9.2.3 would put the total cost of testing these systems on the Providence place Mall.  The Board further finds that the facility has long-term leases with most tenants that were executed with the understanding that the tenants would provide their own fire alarm testing.  The Board further finds that this is a 3.8 million square foot facility, and that the tenant leases providing for tenant testing are generally ten (10) years in duration.  The Board finds that the State Fire Marshal's office considered the testing requirements and modifications to the code to be more applicable to strip mall settings as opposed to 160 store units with National Chains.  In light of the equities in this situation along with the opinion of the State Fire Marshal's office, the Board has concluded that a variance allowing for multiple testing contracts on one system could be permitted in this case.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.10.9.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain testing of the common areas of this facility but to allow multiple testing contracts within the various store units throughout this 3.8 million square foot complex.  In granting this variance, the Board notes the support of the State Fire Marshal's office.

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)].