The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 8, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Blackburn, Dias and Jasparro were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Christopher Moore and Chief of Inspections Scott Caron of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro 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 November 3, 2009 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the February 8, 2011 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 3, 2009 inspection report, with the exception of item 4, as its initial findings of fact.  The Board notes that during the hearing, it directed the State Fire Marshals Office to review the propertys elevation.  By letter dated March 16, 2011, the State Fire Marshals Office determined that deficiency 4 would be eliminated from further reports.  Any modification of the Boards 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 understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency1 by repairing the cited exit sign.
	2.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 2 by providing any necessary upgrades to the municipally connected fire alarm system, at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the State Fire Marshals Office.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3.
	4.  During the February 8, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the State Fire Marshals Office had conducted an initial investigation and determined that this was a three-story facility.  However, the Applicant requested relief in order to utilize the Life Safety Code standards for determination of the number of stories.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the State Fire Marshals Office and the Applicant to utilize the language of NFPA 101, 2009 edition, to determine the number of stories within this facility.  The Board notes that on March 16, 2011, it was advised by the State Fire Marshals Office that under the 2009 edition of the Life Safety Code, this building would qualify as a two-story building and therefore the sprinkler requirement would be moot.  Accordingly, the Board hereby finds that item 4 is moot and not a 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 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)].