The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 22, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Priess, Newbrook, Coutu and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections, William Howe, of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Member Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds the subject facility to be an existing ten (10) story elderly housing complex.  In 1995, the seconded and third floors were converted to an assisted living facility.  At, that time, the State provided the Applicant with an F-1 license for the second and third floors.  In 2002, the Applicants submitted plans for the proposed conversion of the fourth and fifth floors to assisted living.  However, the building has certain structural conditions that prohibit compliance with all of the requirements of the Limited Care Facility provisions of the code.
	The first variance request involves corridor width.  Specifically, the existing corridor width is five feet eight inches except at the structural concrete columns where the width is five feet one and one half inches.  The seconded variance request involves the required installation of a pair of cross-corridor, thirty-two-inches, smoke barrier doors.  In light of the existing corridor width, the Applicant has proposed the installation of a single forty-four inch door at the required locations.  The Applicant has further the Board that he will keep this door open with an approved hold-open device which will automatically disengage in the event of a power outage or activation of the fire alarm system.
	This complex has attached nursing facility containing eighty beds.  The building is fully sprinkled and is of non-combustible construction.  Finally, as a condition of the requested variances, the Applicant, has agreed to upgrade the fire alarm system, 
throughout this complex, to the current code.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies have been corrected by the Applicant.
	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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.	

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 101. Section 12-2.3.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the current corridor width, described above, and still meet the requested licensure requirements of the second, third, fourth and fifth floors of this facility. This variance is based upon structural hardship due to existing construction.
2.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provision of NFPA 101, section 12-2.2.5.4 in order to allow the Applicant to compartmentalize the existing corridors and meet the requested licensure requirements of the second, third fourth and fifth floors of the facility, with approved forty-four inch single swing doors in lieu of the required pair of cross corridor thirty-two inch smoke barrier doors at these locations.  This variance is based upon structural hardship due to existing construction.


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)].