The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 4, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Blackburn, Richard, Jackson, Jasparro, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Kaitlyn Foley of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias 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 September 11, 2007 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 August 4, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 11, 2007 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.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to present the State Fire Marshal's office with plans for the sprinklering of this facility to correct deficiency 1.  The Board further grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 additional days in which to implement this plan and provide this facility with approved sprinkler coverage.  Finally, the Board authorizes the State Fire Marshal's office to extend either or both of the above deadlines for good faith efforts being shown by the Applicant.
	The Board notes that during the August 4, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Applicant had suggested that sprinklers may not be appropriate in this occupancy due to the fact that they could detract from the home-like environment or that angry children could set off the sprinkler system.  In addressing these concerns, the Chairman advised the Applicant that both concerns could be addressed by the design and installation processes for the sprinkler system and that comparable occupancies had been successful in maintaining both the integrity of the sprinkler system and the home-like atmosphere of the buildings environment with sprinklers.
	2-3.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance outlined in item 1 above in order to correct deficiencies 2 and 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office with the installation of single station smoke detection along with approved carbon monoxide detection in the sleeping rooms of this facility.
	4.  During the August 4, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Applicant requested relief from the horn element of the horn/strobe signaling device to be located on the outside of this facility.  At that time the State Fire Marshal's office strongly objected to the requested relief.  In light of the State Fire Marshal's strenuous objection and the fact that the horn/strobe element is designed to provide immediate notification of a potential fire incident to both the surrounding neighbors and the fire department, the Board has determined that the requested relief would be inappropriate.  Accordingly, the Board shall grant the Applicant a time variance as outlined in item 1 above, in order to correct this deficiency by providing this facility with an exterior horn/strobe unit installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals office within the above time frame.
	5-7.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance as outlined in item 1 above to correct deficiencies 5, 6 and 7 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)].