The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 11, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Jasparro, Preiss, Pearson, Dias, Walker and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Waterman of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office along with Chief of Inspections Scott Caron and Deputy State Fire Marshal Christine Kent of the State Fire Marshal's Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioners Filippi and Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 24, 2008 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant, the Smithfield Fire Marshal's Office and the State Fire Marshals Office during the May 11, 2010 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 24, 2008 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 State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a fire alarm drill switch having limited coverage of only the wing subject to MHRH licensure which currently contains nine (9) clients.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected this drill switch and has further provided a separate horn and strobe light for this one particular area.  Accordingly, the Board directs the State Fire Marshal's office to verify compliance in this area in accordance with the above variance.
	3-7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	8.  The Board notes that deficiency 8 will be addressed during its May 25, 2010 hearing where MHRH is seeking an extension of a blanket variance covering sprinkler and fire alarm provisions.
	9-11.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 9, 10 and 11.

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)].