The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing before a subcommittee of the Board on February 17, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Pearson and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Gordon Walsh of the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to recommend to the full Board that it grant the Applicant the relief outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  

The above recommendations were thereupon presented to the full Board on February 22, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jackson, Jasparro, Dias, Filippi, Richard and Walker were present.  A motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro.  The motion was unanimous.  Accordingly, the subcommittee determination has the status of a full Board decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Applicant failed to appear at this hearing, but the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office had no objection to the requested relief and asked the Board to proceed.  The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a March 13, 2007 inspection report compiled by the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board and the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office during the February 17, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 13, 2007 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  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
	1-4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office.
	5.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of table 7.2.2.2.1(b) and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited dimensions of the stairs leading to the second floor of this facility.  In granting this relief on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding of the Board that the North Kingstown Fire Marshal has no objection. 
	6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 6 at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a time table established by the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office. 
	7.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5.1.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited headroom in the apartment door jambs within this facility.  In granting this relief on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding of the Board that the North Kingstown Fire Marshal has no objection.
	8.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5.3 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited headroom in the stairwell to the second floor.  In granting this relief on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding of the Board that the North Kingstown Fire Marshal has no objection.
	9.  During the February 17, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by the Fire Marshal that the Applicant would correct deficiency 9 by providing the stairs to the apartment with compliant handrails.  
	10.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiency 10 was corrected by the Applicant. 
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 submitting a written appeal of the above subcommittee recommendations to the entire Fire Board for review, pursuant to Board Rule 6-2-9.  The Applicant shall thereupon be scheduled for hearing before the full Board of Appeal & Review.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this decision (RIGL 42-35-15(c)).