The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on January 4, 2011 and a written decision was mailed on January 28, 2011.  The above captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on March 29, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Walker, Dias and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Horan of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  During the second hearing on this matter, an initial motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to have the Applicant install heat detection under the deck and provide a second stair off the back deck and to systematically address the housekeeping issues within this facility.  However, that motion failed as a result of the opposition votes of Commissioners Pearson and Jasparro.  A second motion was thereupon made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro require the Applicant to have an engineer review and return with a plan of action on or before May 24, 2011 to address all of the means of egress or to have the Applicant provide intumescent paint on all of the means of egress and to further provide a second stair off of the back deck, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The second motion passed.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates its original decision in file number 100296 as its initial findings of fact in the above captioned case.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has requested to return to review items 7, 8 and 9 because the property manager who attended the original hearing was without authorization by the owner.  The Board allowed the Applicant to return and state his case.  It is the understanding of the Board that all of the deficiencies with the exception of items 7, 8 and 9 on the original November 5, 2010 inspection report have been corrected by the Applicant.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1-6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	7-8.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the option of having an engineer review the egress system of this facility and return with a plan of action for review on May 24, 2011 or alternatively the Applicant may provide a second stair off the back deck of this facility to provide additional egress and to further paint the egress system with an approved intumescent paint at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	9.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 9 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 10 by providing the apartments units with approved fire extinguishers.

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)].