The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 2, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Filippi, Walker, Preiss, Jasparro, Dias and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Joseph Bertholic and Lori Poirier of the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicant was assisted in this matter by a former Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal in his sole capacity as a private citizen.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this facility was previously before it and a decision was issued in file number 060845 on July 7, 2009.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the original decision in file number 060845 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  At that time, the Board also had before it an October 31, 2005 inspection report compiled by the Nasonville Fire Marshal's office.  Accordingly, the Board hereby also adopts the October 31, 2005 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.
	The Board finds that item 1 of the original inspection report advised the Applicant that a second means of egress is required from the two (2) apartments upstairs or the apartments must be evacuated immediately.  The Board finds that deficiency 2 of the original report advised that a service contract was required for the fire alarm system.  The Board finds that deficiency 3 of the inspection report required an approved flame spread rating for the wall coverings within this facility.
	The Board finds that the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshal was unable to attend the original February 5, 2009 hearing on this matter, but advised the Board that he had no objection to the granting of a variance for this facility as requested by the owner.  The Fire Marshal further advised the Board that the owner has made several upgrades to bring the building up to fire code and has spent a lot of money to do these upgrades with no problem.  
	During the hearing, the Board was advised that the Applicant had corrected deficiencies 1 and 2 at the direction of the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshal's office.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant sought a variance in order to maintain the existing interior finish and that the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshal's office had no objection.
	The Board finds that while there was no specific directive to do so by the Board, the Applicant has apparently evacuated the occupants of the apartments on the upper level of this facility.  The Board finds that the Applicant has submitted a plan of action for the re-occupancy of the upper levels of this facility as apartments.  The Board finds that the Applicant's initial plan of action before it addresses both separation and egress issues.  However, the Board finds that it would be in the best interest of all of the parties to keep this file open in order to review any specific final plan of action submitted by the Applicant incorporating the relief outlined below.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that, as part of the plan of action for this facility, the Applicant shall provide a second means of egress out of the back of the building.  Accordingly, it is the understanding of the Board that the egress issues would be addressed and approved by the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshal's office.  In the event there is disagreement, either the Applicant or the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshal may return to the Board for further review of the egress issue.
	2.  During the March 2, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant wished to utilize a panel system with UL rating to try to achieve an approximate two-hour fire separation.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance to give the Applicant an option of utilizing the UL panel rated system with the existing construction of this facility in order to strive for a two-hour separation or as close as possible to the satisfaction of the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshal's office.  Alternatively, the Board hereby authorizes the Applicant to develop a ceiling assembly based on Section 10 of the code for separation between the existing occupancies as outlined in section 10-5-1 et seq.  The Board hereby keeps this file open in the event either the Applicant or the Nasonville Fire District Fire Marshal's office have any questions or wish the Board to further review this project prior to its completion.

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)].