The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for subcommittee hearing on October 15, 2008 at 10:30 A.M. in the New Shoreham Town Hall complex.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Blackburn and Walker were present.  Commissioner Filippi was present, but recused herself from consideration of this and the other cases heard that day.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
	The subcommittee recommendations made in the above captioned case were thereupon scheduled for review by the State Fire Board on October 21, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Preiss, Jackson, Walker, Pearson, Dias and Richard were present.  Commissioner Filippi recused herself from consideration of this case.  Upon review of the subcommittee recommendations, a motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to approve the subcommittee recommendations and 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 October 6, 2008 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicants representative and the State Fire Marshals Office during the October 15, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 6, 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, 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 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited headroom on the stairs from the lobby of this facility on the basis of structural and historical hardship.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs that this headroom area be padded, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office to ensure that patrons would be protected from bumping into it.
	3-21.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the October 6, 2008 inspection report, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	22.  During the October 15, 2008 subcommittee hearing, the Board was advised that the guest rooms are separated from the kitchen and any other areas that could potentially generate carbon monoxide.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant maintains approved carbon monoxide devices in the kitchen and other potentially hazardous areas.  Accordingly, the Board notes that the Applicant would not have to provide the guest rooms on the second floor with carbon monoxide detection in light of the above.
	23.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.2.4.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the stairwell from the first to the second floor without a second hand rail.  This variance is granted pursuant to the full sprinkler coverage of this building and in light of the configuration of the stair case.
	24-29.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	30.  As outlined in item 22 above, properly separated guest rooms that do not contain carbon monoxide generating devices are not required to be provided with carbon monoxide detection.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the guest rooms on the third floor of this facility are not required to be provided with carbon monoxide detectors.
	31.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.2.4.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing width and the absence of a handrail on the stairway on the fourth floor of this facility.  This variance is based on structural hardship in light of the Applicants providing this facility with an approved sprinkler system.
	32-33.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 32 and 33.
	34.  As outlined in time 22 above, the Board notes that properly separated guest rooms that do not contain carbon monoxide generating devices are not required to be provided with carbon monoxide detectors.  Accordingly, the Board notes that the guest rooms on the fourth floor would not be required to be provided with carbon monoxide detection.


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 above approved subcommittee recommendations now have the status of a full Board Decision.  Pursuant to R.I.G.L. 23-28.3-5, if the Applicant is aggrieved by the approved subcommittee recommendations, the Applicant may appeal this Decision approving the subcommittee recommendations, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date below, by sending a request, to be heard before the entire Board, to the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal & Review, One Regan Court, Cranston, RI  02920.