The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on October 15, 2008.  However, a continuance was requested and the matter was rescheduled to December 2, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Preiss, Jackson, Jasparro, Walker, Dias and Richard were present.  Commissioner Filippi recused herself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Dennis McGarty of the State Fire Marshal's office.  After reviewing several of the items on the inspection report, the Board determined that it would be appropriate to grant the Applicant time in which to have an expert review the structural components of the egress system of this facility and determine whether it could be brought into substantial compliance with the code.  Accordingly, the case was continued to February 10, 2009.
The Applicant subsequently notified the Board that he had secured a plan of action for the egress system of this facility from Commonwealth Engineers and Consultants Inc.  Accordingly, the Applicant requested to be reheard prior to the February 10, 2009 date.  The Board thereupon reassigned this case for review and hearing on January 13, 2009.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Preiss and Richard were present.  The fire service was again represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Dennis McGarty of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to accept the Applicants plan of action for the egress system and also the plan of action as presented during both days of hearing as outlined above.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an October 7, 2008 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 initial December 2, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 7, 2008 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  During the January 13, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board also had before it a December 24, 2008 plan of action for the enclosure of the egress stairways within this facility outlined and illustrated by Commonwealth Engineers and Consultants Inc.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the two-page December 24, 2008 letter from Commonwealth Engineers along with the attached sheets SK-1 and SK-2 also dated December 24, 2008 as its follow-up 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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 by providing this facility with an approved upgraded fire alarm system.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by providing this facility with approved manual pull stations.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by providing this facility with approved emergency lighting.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 by providing this facility with the required approved spare sprinkler heads and sprinkler wrench.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by providing the fire alarm panel of this facility with an approved sticker, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	6.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 7.2.8.4, 7.2.8.4.1, 7.2.9 and 7.2.9.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing fire escape system on this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the Applicant maintains one (1) fire escape stairs directly to the grade level and that the remaining fire escape ladders, if extended, would impose a security hardship upon him.  This variance is further based on the fact that this facility is fully sprinklered now and the Applicants December 24, 2008 plan for the upgrading of the internal egress within this facility.
	7-10.  In light of the Applicants December 24, 2008 plan for the upgrade of egress system within this facility, the Board hereby grants a variance from the code provisions cited in deficiencies 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the October 7, 2008 report, in order to allow the Applicant to reconstruct the cited stairways in accordance with the December 24, 2008 plan of action.
	11.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 29.2.7.2 and 7.7.1 in order to allow the occupants of the rooms of the upper floors to pass through the lobby to reach the exit discharge on Water Street in light of the Applicants providing additional sprinkler heads in the lobby area.  
	12.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to implement the December 24, 2008 plan of action for the internal egress system of this facility in lieu of strict compliance with the code as outlined in item 12.
	13.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to implement the December 24, 2008 plan of action in order to maintain the egress width as expanded in that plan of action.
	14.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 14.
	15.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 15 by providing all of the guest room doors with approved self-closing devices installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.

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)].