A hearing involving the above-captioned case was conducted on 3/11/2014 at 1:00 P.M.  In attendance at the hearing were the following: Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Pearson, Walker, Thornton, Richard and Burlingame.  Also in attendance was Department of Administration Deputy Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.  The authority having jurisdiction was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Lutz of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicant was represented by Mr. Joseph Watson of Hughes Associates and Mr. William Gaudett.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Vice-Chairperson Filippi and Commissioner Booth to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed unanimously.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

	1.  A plan of action for the above property was presented by Hughes Associates, Inc. dated January 31, 2014 relating proposed renovations to the first and second floors of the existing business occupancy.
	2.  The Applicant filed an application for variance on February 13, 2014 in accordance with Fire Safety Code Section 6.


RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal 140020 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Hughes Associates, Inc. Plan of Action with building floor plans dated January 31, 2014.
2.	Variance Application 140020 dated February 13, 2014.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were admitted at the 3/11/14 hearing as full exhibits:

1.	One page depiction of three (3) photographs of the property titled 94 Waterman Street  Photographs Fire Board Hearing March 11, 2014.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the 1/31/2014 plan of action compiled by Hughes Associates, Inc..  The above plan of action was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the 3/11/2014 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the 1/31/2014 plan of action 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.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.2 [Stairs] allowing the existing A) riser height, B) minimum clear width, C) dimensional uniformity and D) winder dimensions of the front and rear stairs to remain in use.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provision of section 7.2.1.3 [Floor Level] allowing the existing A) front door and B) bathroom 303 to remain in use.


	3.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provision of chapters 7 and 8 allowing the existing the conditions of A) continuity of construction [8.3.1.2], B) remoteness of exits [7.5.1.3.1], C) door leaf swing direction [7.2.1.4.2(2)], D) exits [7.1.3.2.1(9)] and E) door leaf swing direction [7.2.1.4.2] to remain in use.
	4.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provision of NFPA 72 section 17.14.6 allowing manual fire alarm boxes to be installed inside each stair enclosure on each floor in lieu of at each exit doorway to each exit on each floor.
	It is the understanding of the Board in granting the above relief that there is no objection by the Providence Fire Marshals Office based upon the original construction structural hardships and the proposed additional, non-required smoke detection around all stair enclosures.


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)].