The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 10, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jasparro, Blackburn, Filippi and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief Plan Review Officer Wade Palazini and Deputy State Fire Marshal David Hart of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts as its initial findings of fact a May 6, 2008 building description and plan review compiled by the State Fire Marshal's office.  The Board further adopts as its supplemental findings of fact Appendix A of the Applicants application which outlines the requested relief.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 19.1.6 (minimum construction requirements) in order to be allowed to utilize this existing facility.  The Board notes that this facility was an existing nursing home with an occupancy of approximately seventy (70) people that is being renovated to an in-patient hospice facility with an occupancy of approximately twenty-four (24) patients having an average stay of five days.  The Board further finds that there shall be no patients located on the third level of that facility, but that level shall be utilized for business offices.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has updated the sprinklers with a new fire pump and has provided a new fire alarm with addressable voice systems. 
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8.6.8.2(3) in order to allow the Applicant to provide a smoke barrier on the second floor of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office, thereby maintaining a six foot by twenty foot opening with a single smoke barrier on the second floor.  The Board hereby directs that the above smoke barrier shall be installed prior to occupancy of this facility.

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)].