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, Blackburn and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Christine Kent of the State 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 numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a September 9, 2008 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 17, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 9, 2008 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 
	1-5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	6.  The Board was advised and finds that on June 23, 1983 it had granted a variance addressing the deficiencies outlined in item 6.  The Board hereby reaffirms the variances previously granted for the cited headroom clearance in the September 9, 2008 inspection report.
	7.  The Board further finds that on June 23, 1983 it also granted variances covering the deficiencies outlined in item 7.  Accordingly, the Board hereby reaffirms those variances to cover the deficiencies outlined in item 7.
	8.  During the February 17, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that all non-ambulatory people within this facility are located on the first floor only.  The Board was further advised and finds that the cited headroom in deficiency 8 involves a fire escape door.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing headroom of the fire escape access door.  
	9.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 9 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	10.  During the February 17, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the deficiency outlined in item 10 was involving the last room before the fire escape of this facility.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to have a licensed architect or other professional address the third floor width issues to determine if it can be increased in width or if this is not an option the Applicant may return to the Board with a plan of action developed with the State Fire Marshals Office.  Accordingly, this file shall stay open to allow the Applicant to return without payment of an additional filing fee.
	11.  During the February 17, 2001 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the lower levels of each building were utilized only for storage and laundry and not occupied by the residents but limited to staff.  The Board was further advised that these areas are fully sprinklered.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing egress from the basement areas of this facility.
	12.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiency 12 is moot and that the interior stairways are enclosed with approved solid core doors.  The Board was further advised that now residents occupy this area and therefore a separation would not be required.
	13.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 13 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	14.  During the February 17, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant maintains an existing dumbwaiter that goes from the kitchen dining room to the second floor approximately twice a day with lunch and supper.  The Board was further advised that this was protected by a sprinkler head.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 33.3.3.1.1.1 and 8.6.4.2 and their referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited dumbwaiter within this facility and maintain its limited use.
	15-16.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 15 and 16 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.

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)).