A hearing involving the above-captioned case was conducted on 3/25/2014 at 1:00 P.M.  In attendance at the hearing were the following: Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Jackson, Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame and Sylvester.  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 Chris Mahoney of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicant was represented by Mr. Ray Meyerson.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Vice-Chairperson Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioners Blackburn and Booth with Commissioner Burlingame abstaining.


TRAVEL OF THE CASE

	1.  An inspection of the above properties was conducted by the Newport Fire Marshals Office on November 9, 2012.
	2.  The Applicant filed an application for variance on April 29, 2013 in accordance with Fire Safety Code Section 6.
	3.  These matter was originally before the Board on July 23, 2009 at which time Decisions 130039, 130040 & 139041 were issued, with a mailing date of September 13, 2013.
	4.  On February 4, 2014 Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Chris Mahoney appeared before the Board and advised that the plans of action in the above-captioned matters, which were due on or before October 13, 2013, have not been submitted to the Newport Fire Department as required by the Decision.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal 130039, 130040 & 130041 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Newport Fire Marshals Office Inspection Reports dated November 9, 2012.
2.	Variance Applications 130039, 130040 & 130041 dated April 29, 2013.
3.	Decision 130039/130040/130041.
4.	Show Cause Hearing Notice dated February 6, 2013.


FINDINGS OF FACT

1.	The Board finds that the matter was previously heard and a Decision rendered in files 130039, 130040 & 130041 on or about July 23, 2013.
2.	The Board finds that the date of the decision (mailing date) was September 13, 2013.
3.	The Board finds that the in accordance with the Decision the Applicant was granted a variance of thirty (30) days to submit a plan of action to the Newport Fire Marshals Office, due on or before October 13, 2013.
4.	The Board finds that as of February 4, 2014, no plan(s) of action on the above-captioned properties have been submitted.
5.	The Board finds that on February 6, 2014 the Applicant was sent notice to appear and show cause why all variances previously granted should not be declared void pursuant to Board Rules 6-2-22 and 6-2-23.
6.	The Board finds that plans of action have been submitted to the Newport Fire Marshals Office on or about March 25, 2014.
7.	It is the understanding of the Board that in accordance with the previous decisions that the Applicant has provided for an innkeeper in constant attendance for the three (3) properties and that the fire alarm system for the 205 Spring Street property has been installed.



CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

	The Board hereby reinstates the relief granted pursuant to the previous decisions under Rules 6-2-22 and 6-2-23 as follows:

1.	The Newport Fire Marshals Office shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of this hearing in which to review and approve the plan(s) of action submitted by the Applicant.
2.	The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days to install the fire alarm systems at 199 Spring Street and 41 Pelham Street upon acceptance of the plans by the Newport Fire Marshals Office.
3.	  As a condition of granting this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide 3rd-party off-premises monitoring of all three (3) fire alarm systems, with notification by telephone to the on-duty innkeeper and the Newport Fire department, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  It is further directed by the Board that these shall be deemed required systems with emergency forces notification as directed above.
In granting the above relief, it is the understanding of the Board that there is no objection by the Newport 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)].