The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 3, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Filippi, Burlingame, Pearson, Coutu and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Ed Raposo of the Nasonville Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Coutu 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 March 2, 2003 inspection report compiled by the Nasonville Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Nasonville Fire Marshals Office during the February 3, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 2, 2003 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 the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal.)

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 to the satisfaction of the Nasonville Fire Marshals office by providing the cited egress doors with approved panic hardware.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by providing this facility with approved emergency lighting, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Nasonville Fire Marshals office.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by providing an approved one-hour fire rated door in the kitchen of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Nasonville Fire Marshals office.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 by providing approved signage for the fire extinguishers in this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Nasonville Fire Marshals office.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant is in the process of correcting deficiency 5 by providing this facility with an approved local fire alarm system, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Nasonville Fire Marshal or designee.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to have this system installed within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has correct deficiency 6 by providing the apartment suites of this facility with approved properly swinging fire rated doors.
	7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 7 by properly fire rating the egress passageways of this facility.
	8.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing window size and access to a fire escape system from the bedrooms of this facility.  The Board directs the Applicant to remove all locks and locking devices from those bedroom doors through which access to the fire escape system is achieved.  Finally, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to provide an approved system of fire escape platforms and ladders as a second means of egress from the apartment units of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Nasonville Fire Marshals office, within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	9.  It is the understanding of the Board that the heating of these units is with natural gas and/or electric baseboard heat and that the Nasonville Fire Marshals office has reported no problems.

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)].