The above-captioned cases were scheduled for hearing on December 12, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Preiss, OConnell and Filippi were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of these cases.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal's Office along with Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Christopher Kirwin and Brad Cronin of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner OConnell to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During this hearing, the Board was advised that these residential units were separated by approved fire-rated barriers and did not maintain common egress.  The Applicant is requesting approval to have these facilities reviewed under the one and two-family code and to bring these facilities into full compliance with that code.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall bring these facilities into full compliance with the one and two-family code if authorized to do so by the Board.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to have the subject buildings reviewed under the one and two-family code and to bring these facilities into full compliance with the requirements for one and two-family occupancies, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport 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)].