The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 27, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners O’Connell, Newbrook, Coutu, Evans, Pearson, Fillippi and Burlingame were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John McDermott of the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Fillippi 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 18, 2000 inspection report complied by the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office and the Board Decision, dated April 12, 1995, which covers this property.  The above report and decision were utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office during the March 27, 2001 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 18, 2000 inspection report and its April 12, 1995 Decision 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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

6. The Board hereby modifies Item 6 of its original decision in this matter in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the third floor this facility as an efficiency apartment.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant provide the third floor with an approved new second means of egress and to further provide the third floor with AC smoke detection in the bedroom.  The new means of egress shall be provided prior to the occupancy of the third floor unit has apartment.
	
9. In light of the above request of the Applicant, the Board hereby voids the variance, granted in item 9 of the April 12, 1995 Decision, and directs the Applicant to provide the third floor this facility with an approved second means of egress prior to the occupancy of the proposed apartment unit.

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)].