The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 31, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Wayne Clark and Chris Mahoney of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Vice Chairperson Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 31, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshals Office had encountered serious issues with the activation of the smoke detectors within this facility by steam generated by the residents showers.  The Marshal and the Applicant further advised the Board of many of the steps they had taken to alleviate this situation.  Finally, the Applicant and the Marshal advised the Board that they were seeking the Boards guidance in this matter.  After several additional options were discussed with the parties, the Board determined that it would be appropriate to provide the parties with an additional sixty (60) days in which to explore these new options and to return if necessary.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance until March 27, 2012 in which to explore other alternatives for the elimination of false fire alarms for this complex.  Specifically, if the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshal resolve their issues within the sixty (60) day period, this file shall be closed.  Alternatively, if the parties are unable to resolve the issues, they will be allowed to return on March 27, 2012 for a full review by the Board.

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)].