A hearing involving the above-captioned case was conducted on 4/8/2014 at 1:00 P.M.  In attendance at the hearing were the following: Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Pearson, Thornton, Jackson, Blackburn, Burlingame and Sylvester.  Also in attendance was Department of Administration Deputy Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.  The authority having jurisdiction was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Christopher Moore of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicant was represented by Mr. Jonathan DePault.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester 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.  An inspection of the above property was conducted by the State Fire Marshals Office on July 23, 2013 with an inspection report issuing on July 29, 2013.
	2.  The Applicant filed an application for variance on December 26, 2013 in accordance with Fire Safety Code Section 6.


RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal 140024 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	State Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated July 23, 2013.
2.	Variance Application 140024 dated December 26, 2013.
3.	Union Studio plan of action dated November 19, 2013.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the 7/23/2013 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 4/8/2014 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the 7/23/2013 inspection 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, 2 & 4.  [13-903-VN, 13-904-VN & 13-902-VN]  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2 and 4 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	3.  [13-905-VN]  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of section 39.2.4.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a single means of egress from the second level of this facility.  The Board directs the Applicant to provide the existing wooden doors leading into the primary egress system with an approved fire rated surface on both sides and approved spring-loaded hinges and to replace the existing glass doors with 20-minute fire rated doors with self-closing devices at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision.
	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has installed an approved fire alarm system within this facility and has provided the primary means of egress with domestically supplied sprinkler heads, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	It is the understanding of the Board in granting the above relief that there is no objection by the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the State Fire Marshals Office to extend the above timeline for good faith efforts being demonstrated 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)].