The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 3, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Wahlberg, Newbrook, O'Connell, Filippi, Burlingame and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Fisher of the Saylesville Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Filippi 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 a May 17, 2000 inspection report complied by the Saylesville Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Saylesville Fire Marshal’s Office during the October 3, 2000 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 17, 2000 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s 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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a second means of egress from the apartments of this facility through kitchens.  In granting this variance on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall provide this facility with approved fire alarm system as outlined in item 9 below.

2. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-5 in order to allow the Applicant maintain the existing construction, configuration and rating of the cited main stairway this facility.  This variance granted pursuant to the Board's above understanding.

3. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by properly re-swinging the main egress store of this facility, in the direction of exit travel, to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshal's office.

4. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-6 in order to allow the Applicant to provide the cited doors with approved spring-loaded hinges, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshal, within 120 days of the date of this decision.

5. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-6 in order to allow the Applicant to provide the existing cited door jambs of this facility with approved solid core wooden doors maintaining an approximate fire rating of 20 minutes.

6. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 6 by providing the main entrance of this facility with an approved exit sign, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshal, within 120 days of the date of this decision.

7. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 7 by providing this facility with approved emergency lighting, at the direction and to satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshal, within 120 days of the date of this decision.

8. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-13 in order to grant the Applicant option to provide each apartment units of this facility with approved fire extinguishers.  In any event, the Applicant is directed to properly service the fire extinguishers within this facility within 15 days of the date of this decision.

9. As a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide this facility approved fire alarm system, installed at direction and to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshal or designee, in accordance the provisions of section 23-28.25-4(a), within 120 days of the date of this decision.

10. The Board here by directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 10, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Saylesville Fire Marshal, within 120 days the date of this decision.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].