The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 31, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was initially made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Dias to deem violation 10-568-VN to be moot and not a violation of the code.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.  A second motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Jackson concerning item 10-569-VN.  Specifically, the second motion allowed the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of the basement egress.  This motion passed unanimously.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with those provisions of a March 16, 2010 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 July 31, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 16, 2010 inspection report (10-384-IS) 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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1-2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1 and 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals office.
3.  It is the determination of the Board that deficiency 3 (10-568-VN) is not a violation of the State Fire Code and therefore moot.
4. (10-569-VN).  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of the means of egress within the basement of this facility.  This variance is based upon structural hardship in the absence of an objection by the State Fire Marshals office.
5-11.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been corrected by the Applicant.

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)].