The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 13, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Raymond Pacheco and Timothy Lutz of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro 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 September 28, 2012 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the November 13, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 28, 2012 plan review 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 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.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant is planning to correct deficiency 1 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 31.3.5.1 in order to allow the Applicant not to provide the subject facility with approved sprinkler coverage based upon sleeping accommodations above the third floor.  Specifically, the Board notes that this requirement did exist under the original fire codes.  However, the code to go into effect on January 1, 2013 has deleted this requirement.  Accordingly, the Board has granted this variance based upon the fact that this building will be in full compliance without sprinkler coverage on and after January 1, 2013.
	2-14.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiencies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	15.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall attempt to correct deficiency 15 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  However, the Board shall specifically allow the Applicant to reopen this file in order to address an alternative plan of action for item 15 or any of the other deficiencies until such time as a final certificate of occupancy is issued for this facility.

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)].