The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 7, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Burlingame, Blackburn, Jackson, Jasparro, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael Macaruso of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a February 2, 2009 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 7, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 2, 2009 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.  During the February 7, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 1 by providing this facility with approved sprinkler coverage.  Accordingly, deficiency 1 would be rendered moot upon the installation of the approved sprinkler coverage.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 33.2.2.6 and 7.2.2.2.4.3 along with their referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited dimensions of the winding stairs located in the front and the rear of this facility.  This variance is granted on the basis of structural hardship and limited occupancy and the fact that the State Fire Marshals Office had no objection.
	3.  The Board notes that there is no deficiency 3 listed on the February 2, 2009 inspection report.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 by upgrading the handrails of this facility.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	6.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in which to finalize the submitted plans to the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional 120 days in order to implement the above plans and provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 7 by providing this facility with approved smoke and carbon monoxide detection.
	8.  During the February 7, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant has almost completed the installation of the sprinkler system within this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined in item 6 above in order to complete installation of the sprinkler system of this facility.
	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 7, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that upon installation of the sprinkler coverage as outlined in item 8 above, deficiency 10 would be moot and not a violation of the State Fire Code.

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)].