The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 2, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Filippi, OConnell, Jasparro, Jackson, Blackburn and Richard were present.  Commissioner Preiss left during this hearing and therefore did not participate in the vote at the conclusion of the hearing.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Jackson 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 September 30, 2007 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the October 2, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 30, 2007 plan review 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 
	1-4.  As noted on the September 30, 2007 plan review report, a building permit was issued by the Providence Department of Inspections and Standards for work on this building in December of 2006.  The threshold question the Board has before it is whether or not new work is governed under the Life Safety Code or whether it would fall under the provisions of the fifteen-point plan.  During the October 2, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board advised the parties that all new work within this facility would have to comply with the provisions of the Life Safety Code covering new construction along with the provisions of the State Building Code, Mechanical Code and NFPA 90A.  Accordingly, the Board directs that the proposed new construction outlined in items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the September 30, 2007 plan review report should be addressed under those provisions of the Life Safety Code and its referenced standards covering new construction.  New construction does not generally fall within the parameters of the fifteen-point plan.  An exception to this would be the location of sprinkler heads as addressed in item 5 below.
	5.  The Board notes that its new regulations propose to limit the use of the fifteen-point plan to apartment buildings that were previously converted to this occupancy from older, existing one, two and three-family dwellings.  The Board further notes that larger buildings, that did not secure building permits prior to January 1, 2008, would not be allowed to utilize the fifteen-point plan.  However, since the building in question secured its building permit in December of 2006, the Board shall allow the Applicant to utilize the fifteen-point plan for the placement of a limited coverage sprinkler system within this facility.  Specifically, the Applicant may provide sprinkler coverage throughout the egress system along with a single head inside of each apartment door within this complex.  The Applicant therefore has relief from providing this facility with a full coverage sprinkler system if he should choose to utilize the fifteen-point plan as a basis for the location of sprinkler heads.  The Board notes that the Applicant would still have to provide proper engineering of the sprinkler system, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	6.  During the October 2, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from providing the common cooking area of this facility with additional protection in accordance with NFPA 96 and 17A.  The Board was further advised and finds that this is a rated room with sprinkler coverage and an approved door closure.  The Board was further advised and finds that there is a K class fire extinguisher utilized in this area and that the four-burner range is utilized for heating of precooked food as opposed to the generation of grease-laden vapors.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant not to fully comply with the provisions of NFPA 96 and NFPA 17A, but rather to provide any additional protection in this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	7.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 7 by providing the emergency instructions annually to all of the occupants of the dwelling units of this facility.  In directing to so provide this information, the Board notes that the fifteen-point plan addresses structural difficulties and not operational issues.

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)].