The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Newbrook, O’Connell, Coutu, Pearson, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Jobin of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner  Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board finds that this case was previously before it and Decisions were rendered on November 29, 1985 and November 10, 1999. Upon re-inspection, it was determined that the Applicant failed to comply with the above Decisions. The Applicant has returned to the Board and is now requesting additional time to comply. In light of time period, the Board finds that the most practical active fire protection system for this occupancy would be a fire alarm system installed to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office. 

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. The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain all prior variances upon the following conditions.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of sixty days from the date of this decision in order to allow the Applicant to provide a 20 minute separation between the laundry room and the stairway. The Board further grants a sixty day time variance, from the date of this Decision, in order to allow the Applicant to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system. The twenty minute separation and the fire alarm system shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal.

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)].