The above-captioned cases were scheduled for hearing on December 17, 2002 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Richard and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Henry Lateck of the Cranston Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Pearson  to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the December 17, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this complex consists of four buildings built in 1972. Buildings 2 & 4 are not separated by fire walls and are therefore considered a single building of twenty four (24) units under the fire code. Buildings 3 & 5 and 7 & 9 are also considered single buildings under the fire code and these combined buildings each contain a total of twenty-four (24) units. Building 6 stands alone and has twelve living units. 
	
The Board further finds that the above buildings are wood frame construction with brick veneer exterior walls. They have gable hip roofs and are heated by gas-fired boilers. The boilers are in approved one-hour enclosures.  Finally, these buildings are currently protected by a municipally connected fire alarm system.  
	
Building 6, the twelve unit building, has approximately 11,651 square feet of living area. The consolidated twenty-four unit buildings (2 & 4), (3 & 5) and  (7 & 9) each contain approximately 20,809 square feet of living area.  
	
On July 19, 2001, the Cranston Fire Marshal’s Office provided the Applicant with an inspection report covering the fire code deficiencies within this complex. This report was used by the Board, the Applicant and the Cranston Fire Marshal during the December 17, 2002 hearing on this matter. Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 19, 2001 inspection report as its supplemental findings of fact. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected the deficiencies cited in the above report with the exception of the missing door labels, spring loaded hinges and the absence of exit signs.  

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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-6 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing solid core doors and jambs within the egress system of the above-cited buildings within this complex. 

2. As a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to equip the above doors with approved UL listed spring loaded hinges, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Cranston Fire Marshal, within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of this Decision.

3. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-11 in order to allow the Applicant not to provide these facilities with exit signs. In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the exit routes in these facilities are obvious and that the Cranston Fire Marshal has no objection to the granting of this relief. 

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].