The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 29, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Dias and Pearson were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Oscar Elmasian and James Bellamy of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the March 29, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant was seeking a variance from the provisions of section 7.4.1.1.  Specifically, the Board was advised and finds that the existing egress stair from the second level to the ground floor showroom is the only viable means of egress from the second level of this project.  The Board was further advised and finds that the egress stair is currently unenclosed at both levels and does not meet the required 100 foot maximum travel distance for a single means of egress.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant has determined that modifying the configuration of the existing stairs was structurally infeasible.  The Board was further advised and finds that enclosing the stairs at the ground level would impede egress from the adjacent spaces.  The Board was further advised and finds that there appears to be no reasonable, viable location to provide a second remote means of egress from the second level.
	The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant has worked with the East Providence Fire Marshals Office and has developed an alternative solution to be presented to it.  The Board was advised and finds that the solution involves enclosing the stair at the second level with a one-hour rated enclosure and additionally providing the entire building with full sprinkler coverage, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.
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.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 7.4.1.1 and 39.2.4.4 and their referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a single means of egress from the second floor of this facility and to maintain relief on the travel distance from the second floor egress.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding and direction of the Board that this entire facility shall be fully sprinklered, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office and that the Applicant shall enclose the stair on the second level with a one-hour rated enclosure and/or at the top of the stairwell, and to further allow the accounting Office to egress into the stairwell.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to secure approval of the plans for the modification of this facility.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in order to implement the above plans.  The Board notes, that as a condition of this variance, the Applicant shall fully sprinkler the building and provide an additional door through the parts department, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence 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 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)].