The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 13, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Dias were present.  Chairman Newbrook recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Albert Heroux of the State Fire Marshals Office along with Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael Andrews of the Central Falls Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with relevant deficiencies outlined in a January 20, 2011 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The numbers are further identified in the Applicants plan of correction dated March 1, 2011.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the January 20, 2011 inspection report along with the March 1, 2011 plan of action as its initial findings of fact in this case.  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.  (Addressing all of the deficiencies outlined in inspection report 10-1191-IS with the exception of deficiency 10-2537-VN).  During the September 13, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by the Marshal and the Applicant that the Applicant had developed a plan of action which appears to be acceptable to all parties.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to address the deficiencies outlined in inspection report 10-1191-IS by implementing its March 1, 2011 plan of correction, at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the State Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  (10-2537-VN).  During the September 13, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the second floor of this facility was Type 5 construction and this had been an existing condition since 1977.  The Board was further advised that this facility is fully sprinklered and alarmed and had been approved by previous inspectors during the period of 1977-2004.  The Board was further advised that only ambulatory patients are allowed on the second floor and that the Applicant was requesting to be allowed to demonstrate compliance under NFPA 101A in order to maintain the construction type of the second floor and to continue occupancy thereof.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to demonstrate compliance under NFPA 101A in order to continue to occupy the second floor of this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the second floor shall remain fully sprinklered and alarmed and that only ambulatory patients shall be allowed on the second floor of this facility, 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 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)].