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.  An initial motion in this case was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Richard.  However, the motion did not carry as five (5) Commissioners opposed it.  A second motion was made by Vice Chairperson Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Richard.  This second motion incorporated the contents of the original motion but further directed the Applicant to provide this facility with a municipal fire alarm system and allowed for a third party monitoring of that system in the event the code allowed for this in the future.  The second motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioner Blackburn and Commissioner Burlingame.  Finally, Commissioner Jasparro requested the Applicant to look into the possibility of providing this facility with an approved fire escape system.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with those of a February 2, 2012 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, 2012 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.  (12-9-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 and that handrails have been installed.
	2.  (12-10-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by installing the cited wiring in a proper box.
	3.  (12-12-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this decision in which to correct deficiency 3 by providing the cited electrical panels with a circuit directory for each circuit, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	4.  (12-13-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	5.  (12-14-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by removing the cited locking hasp at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	6.  (12-59-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this decision in which to correct deficiency 6 by providing approved one-hour separation between the mercantile occupancy and the apartment occupancy of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	7.  (12-60-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this decision in which to correct deficiency 7 by enlarging the cited apartment windows as a means of escape at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board further notes that Commissioner Jasparro has requested the Applicant to look into the possibility of providing this facility with a fire escape system.  

Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to discuss the Commissioners suggestion with the State Fire Marshals Office about the possibility of voluntarily installing a fire escape system.  However, the Board notes that the lack of a fire escape system was not determined to be a deficiency by the State Fire Marshals Office.
	8.  (11-2855-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of this decision in which to provide this facility with a fire alarm system that allows for emergency force notification.  As was noted during the hearing, the Applicant may provide this fire alarm system with third party monitoring if such monitoring is allowed in the pending fire code upgrades.  Accordingly, any third party monitoring would be in accordance with the updated versions of the State Fire Code.  The Board notes that these versions shall be available prior to the expiration of the Applicants time variance above.

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)].