The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 29, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Garvey of the Central Falls Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds this is a three (3) story unprotected wood structure type V (000) occupied by four (4) residential units on the second and third floors and commercial use on the first floor.  Two stairways service the apartment.  The stairways are at the front of the building and center rear.  The rear stairway provides access to the basement.  The Board further finds that the Central Falls Fire Marshal’s Office has conducted an inspection of this facility and has generated a July 7, 2004 inspection report.  It is the further finding of the Board that all of the items in the report have been addressed with the exception of fire escape system.  

The Central Falls Fire Marshal’s Office requested that the Applicant provide fire escapes directly from apartment windows from the second floor to the satisfaction of that office and to further ensure that the residents would not place air conditioners in the window utilized to access the fire escape.  The Applicant has agreed to this plan.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the agreed upon fire escape system from the apartment windows on the second floor of this facility.  The above system shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Central Falls Fire Marshal’s Office and the Applicant is required to police this system to ensure that no air conditioners or other obstructions are place in the emergency egress windows.  In granting this relief it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected all the remaining deficiencies on the July 7, 2004 inspection report to the satisfaction of the Central Falls 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)].