The above-captioned case was scheduled for a hearing before a subcommittee of the Board on April 27, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias and Jasparro were present.  Commissioners Blackburn and Preiss recused themselves from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshal's Office and Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Mackey of the Westerly Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to recommend to the full Board that it grant the Applicant the relief outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  

The above recommendations were thereupon presented to the full Board on May 4, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Walker, Jasparro, Preiss, Blackburn and Richard were present.  A motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro.  The motion passed with Commissioner Preiss abstaining from the vote.  Accordingly, the subcommittee determination has the status of a full Board decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	Pursuant to the documentation submitted and the testimony taken during the April 27, 2010 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board finds that the Elms Retirement Center is an existing assisted living building that was previously licensed by the Department of Health as an F1 facility.  The Board further finds that the building is classified as an existing residential board and care facility with an impractical evacuation capacity.
	The Board finds that the east wing is four (4) stories above grade.  The Board further finds that the building is not provided with a basement.  The Board further finds that the first floor contains residential dwelling units and a salon area.  The Board further finds that the second floor contains residential dwelling units and a common dining room.  The Board finds that the kitchen is not located within the east wing.  The Board further finds that the third and fourth floors contain residential dwelling units and a sitting room.  The Board further finds that all residential units are provided with independent bathroom facilities.  However, the residential units are not provided with cooking equipment.
	The Board further finds that the building is protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system and a municipally connected fire alarm system.  The Board further finds that the fire alarm system consists of smoke detection in all corridors and manual fire alarm boxes are provided at each exit.  The Board notes that this facility and comparable facilities were allowed to have an NFPA 101A fire safety evaluation study conducted in order to determine what steps were needed to allow this facility to become a protect-in-place facility due to its construction type.  The Board finds that this study has been completed to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	The Board finds that the study revealed that it would be necessary to add approximately fifty-seven (57) system smoke detectors on the fourth floor to become equivalent under the 101A study.  The Board further finds that this would effectively require a system smoke detector in each room, bathroom and closet.  The Board finds that the State Fire Marshal's office is in support of the Applicant's request to eliminate the smoke detection in the patient room bathrooms and closets but to maintain smoke detection within the actual room itself.  The Board finds that this relief would be limited only to the bathrooms and closets within the patient rooms that already have a smoke detector.  The Board finds that with the elimination of the redundant smoke detection, the Applicant would be required still to install twenty-three (23) smoke detectors throughout the facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.  Finally, the Board finds that the State Fire Marshal's office is in support of the Applicant's request for the requested relief.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby approves the Applicant's plan to bring this facility into compliance with the NFPA 101A life safety evaluation study with the proposed deletion of redundant smoke detection in the patient room closets and patient room bathrooms.  The Board notes that all other smoke detection shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction 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 submitting a written appeal of the above subcommittee recommendations to the entire Fire Board for review, pursuant to Board Rule 6-2-9.  The Applicant shall thereupon be scheduled for hearing before the full Board of Appeal & Review.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this decision (RIGL 42-35-15(c)).