As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on December 9, 2014 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Booth, Filippi, Jackson, Richard, Sylvester and Thornton.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Chris Mahoney of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Gordon Zaniol.
TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under Chapter 23-28.3, entitled the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by David Bazarsky (agent) of Bellevue Plaza, LLC, 678 Aquidneck Avenue, Middletown, RI dated November 24, 2014.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  140151 opened on December 2, 2014.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on December 9, 2014 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 7 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  140151 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  140151 dated November 24, 2014 and filed on December 1, 2014.
2.	Newport Fire Marshals Plan Review Disapproval Letter dated October 28, 2014.
3.	Letter of Authorization for Gordon Zaniol from David Bazarsky dated December 3, 2014.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the December 9, 2014 hearing as exhibits:

1.	None.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the October 28, 2014 plan review disapproval letter compiled by the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshals Office during the December 9, 2014 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 28, 2014 plan review disapproval letter 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.
2.	The building is an existing business occupancy.
3.	There is no objection by the Newport Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.


CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	This deficiency has been corrected.
2.	The Board grants the Applicant a variance from complying with the provisions of RILSC sections 7.2.2.5.1.1 and 39.3.1.1 by allowing the existing stairs to remain in use based upon a structural hardship.  In consideration of the relief granted herein, the Board directs the Applicant to provide a plan of action for the installation of emergency forces notification to the facility fire alarm system within one thirty (30) days of the date of the decision with an additional one hundred fifty (150) days to implement the plan, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.
3.	This deficiency has been corrected.
4.	This deficiency has been corrected.

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).

Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the Newport Fire Marshals Office to extend the above timeline for good faith efforts being demonstrated by the applicant.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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).
2.	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).
3.	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).
4.	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)].