As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on September 15, 2015 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Filippi, Jackson, Pearson, Richard and Thornton.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Scott Derry of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Joseph Watson and Sean Redfern.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under R.I.G.L. Chapter 23-28.3, entitled the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Kevin Perry (authorized representative) of 250 Lloyd Avenue, Providence, RI dated July 29, 2015.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  150083 opened on August 6, 2015.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on September 15, 2015 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 6 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  150083 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  150083 dated July 29, 2015 and filed on August 5, 2015.
2.	Jensen Hughes Plan of Action dated July 17, 2015.
3.	Letter of Authorization for Jensen Hughes from Kevin Perry dated July 29, 2015.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the September 15, 2015 hearing as exhibits:

1.	None.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the July 17, 2015 plan of action report compiled by Jensen Hughes.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the September 15, 2015 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 17, 2015 plan of action 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.
2.	There is no objection by the Providence Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of three (3) years from the date of the hearing from the provisions of RILSC section 7.1.5.1(1) by allowing the existing headroom condition to remain in use.
2.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of three (3) years from the date of the hearing from the provisions of RILSC sections 7.2.1.3.1 and 7.2.1.3.2 by allowing the existing door surface level condition to remain in use.
3.	The Board hereby determines that the cited handrails in the project are not an issue and that no relief is necessary.
4.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of three (3) years from the date of the hearing from the provisions of RILSC sections 15.2.1.2 and 15.2.1.4 by allowing the existing exit discharge and independent egress condition to remain in use.

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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the Providence Fire Marshals Office to extend the above timeline(s) for good faith compliance efforts being demonstrated by the Applicant in accordance with the provisions of Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-22.1.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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 6-2-22).
2.	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 6-2-23.)  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 6-2-24).
3.	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 6-2-25).
4.	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.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18).  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].