The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Walker 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 those of an October 18, 2011 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 June 26, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 18, 2011 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.  (11-1635-VN).  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the cited staff restroom door to maintain the twenty-one (21) inch clear width.  In granting this relief on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding of the Board that this restroom shall not be open to the public and should be utilized only by staff.  It is also the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	2-8.  (11-1636-VN, 11-1637-VN, 11-1638-VN, 11-1639-VN, 11-1640-VN, 11-1641-VN and 11-1642-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as outlined on the October 18, 2011 inspection report.
	9.  (11-1643-VN).  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain pallet off-loading within the cited non-patient area.  The Board directs the Applicant to maintain sufficient egress width in this area at all times, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board notes that the State Fire Marshals office has no objection to the Applicant maintaining this operation.
	10-11.  (11-1644-VN and 11-1645-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 10 and 11 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	12.  (11-1646-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in which to submit a plan of action for providing stairwell smoke detectors in this facility.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in order to implement the plan of action.  The Board notes that this additional time is necessary in order to allow the Applicant to conduct asbestos abatement and upgrade the stairwells prior to the installation of the smoke detection.
	13.  (11-1647-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined in item 12 above in order to correct deficiency 13 by removing all of the obstructions to the water spray pattern at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	14.  (11-1648-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined in item 12 above in order to either correct deficiency 14 or provide the State Fire Marshals Office with documentation from a professional engineer indicating that the sprinklers in the stairwells maintain proper coverage.  
	15-18.  (11-1649-VN, 11-1650-VN, 11-1651-VN and 11-1634-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 15, 16, 17 and 18 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)].