The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 1, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Preiss, Pearson, Filippi, OConnell, Jackson and Jasparro were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Christopher Heiner of the Union Fire District 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
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a December 19, 2005 inspection report compiled by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the May 1, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 19, 2005 
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 by providing this facility with an approved compliant fire alarm system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the local Fire Marshals Office.
2.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by providing this facility with approved sprinkler coverage installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the local Fire Marshals Office.
3.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 37.2.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited exit for the basement through a bulkhead with five (5) steps up to grade.  This variance is based on structural hardship in light of the limited use and occupancy of the basement of this facility and the fact that this facility is fully sprinklered and alarmed.
4.	In light of the fact that the Applicant has provided this entire facility with sprinkler coverage, the Board finds deficiency 4 to have been corrected by the Applicant in accordance with the provisions of section 8.7.1.1(2).
5.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by providing the required exit signage.
6.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 6, in this sprinklered building, to the satisfaction of the local Fire Marshals Office.
7.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.2 and table 7.2.2.2.1(b) in order to allow the applicant to maintain the existing dimensions within the cited rear second floor exit of this facility.  This variance is based on structural hardship.
8.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 31.3.6.2 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing apartment doors with screw spring hinges within this sprinklered complex.  In granting this variance the Board notes that these are oversized doors and that the Applicant has further provided smoke detection along with carbon monoxide detection throughout this area.
9.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 9 by sealing off the transoms in the second floor corridor of the apartment occupancy.
10.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 10 by properly rebolting the fire escape ladder to the side of the building.
11.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 11 by providing this facility with approved AC smokes and fire 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 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)].