The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Dias, Pearson, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Albert Heroux of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioner Jackson abstaining.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a February 29, 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 March 6, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 29, 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.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 19.1.6.4, 19.1.6.5 and Table 19.1.6.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain its existing construction and number of stories and to therefore be considered in compliance with the above sections pursuant to this variance.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection in light of the fact that this facility is fully sprinklered, maintains an approved municipally connected fire alarm system, and that the Applicant has agreed to limit the number of non-ambulatory patients per floor, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Accordingly, as a condition of this relief, the Applicant is directed to limit the number of non-ambulatory patients per floor at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	2-12.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as outlined on the February 29, 2012 inspection report covering this facility.
	13.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in which to develop and submit a plan of action for the correction of deficiency 13.  The Board grants the Applicant an additional 150 days from the above period in which to implement the above plan of action by bringing the hood and duct system of this facility into compliance with the Code at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  In the event that the parties have additional questions or wish the Board to review any plan of action, they shall be allowed to return to the Board for further consideration on this item within the above time period.
	14-28.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	29.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 19.2.4.1, 19.2.2.8 and 7.2.9.1 and their referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the fire escape system as an approved second means of egress from this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board has been advised by the State Fire Marshals Office that the fire escape system has been well maintained and is sound.  The Board further had before it for review a May 11, 2010 report by the Applicants engineer Michael J. DiMeo, P.E., which is incorporated herein by reference.  
	30-31.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 30 and 31 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)].