The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 21, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Newbrook, Pearson, Filippi, Burlingame and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Steven Moise and Joseph Michalczyk of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a December 17, 2004 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the December 21, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 17, 2004 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s 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 the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal.)”

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited height of the common stairways within this facility.  This variance is based on structural hardship upon review with the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  
	
2.  During the December 21, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board noted that each of the cited condo units had two (2) approved means of egress.  However, the Board directed the Providence Fire Marshal and the Applicant to develop a plan of action to address the fact that there is no authorized means of egress from the elevator lobby on the second and third floor levels of this facility.  One plan of action, recommended by the Providence Fire Marshal’s office, would be a designated telephone line to 911 in the case of emergency.  If this is acceptable to the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal’s office, it would be acceptable to the Board.
	
3.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #3 by providing approved emergency lighting in those areas designated by the Providence 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 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)].