The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, O'Connell, Richard, Pearson, Burlingame and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley of the East Greenwich Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard 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 15, 2000 plan review report complied by the East Greenwich Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshal’s Office during the January 30, 2001 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 15, 2000 plan review report 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

1-2. It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 1 and 2 are informational in nature and not violations of the state fire code.

3. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 18-2.4 in our to allow the Applicant to maintain one approved means of egress from the front efficiency apartment of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the East Greenwich Fire Marshal's office has no objection in light of the Applicant agreement to provide this facility with approved fire alarm system.

4. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 18-2.2.5.2 & 3 and 18-3.6.  in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing corridor wall construction of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the plaster walls of the corridor are in good condition.

5. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 18-2, 18-3.6.2, 18-3.6.3, 5-2.1.1.2, 5-2.1.3.1, 5-2.1.3.2, 5-2.2.1.3.3, 5-2.1.4.1 and 5-2.1.4.2, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain existing swing of the cited doors of this facility and to further equipped existing door jambs with approved steel doors maintaining an approximate firing of 20 minutes.  The above door shall be further equipped with spring-loaded hinges and installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshal prior to the occupancy of the first and second floors of this facility.

6-12. It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are informational in nature and not cited violations of the fire code.

13. During the January 30, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Applicant requested to be allowed to provide six domestically supplied sprinkler heads in the basement of this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 18-3.2.1 (and referenced table) in our to allow the Applicant to provide the above sprinkler coverage in lieu of a one-hour enclosure of the boiler room of this facility.

14-19	It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are informational in nature and not considered violations of the fire code.

20. During the January 30, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Applicant advised the Board that he would provide an approved fire rated separation between the business and residential occupancies of this facility.  Accordingly, The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions outlining the sprinkler requirements for this occupancy in order to allow the Applicant to provide this separation in lieu of sprinkler coverage. The above fire separation shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshal within 120 days of the date of this decision.

21. It is the understanding of the Board that deficiency 21 is informational in nature and not a cited violation of the state fire code.

 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)].