The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on January 6, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, the Applicant was granted a variance in order to allow the Applicant to change the classification of facility from F-2 to F-1 without having to install the cited smoke barriers pursuant to section 18.36.7.1.  The Applicant thereupon requested that this matter be reopened and that additional relief be considered by the Board.  Accordingly, the above captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on May 25, 2004 at 1:00P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Coutu, Burlingame, Evans and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Mackey of the Westerly Fire Marshals Office and Deputy State Fire Marshal and Chief of Inspection William Howe of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion to grant the requested relief was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Filippi.  However, the motion failed due to the fact that is was supported by three (3) Commissioners and opposed by four (4).  Accordingly, the Applicants requested is deemed to have been denied by the Board.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this facility was previously before it and incorporated its decision in file 030392 as its initial finding of fact.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has requested the Boards approval to install fire doors on the second and third floors of the west wing of this facility allowing those residents that occupy the suites east of those doors to have an F-1 status allowing them to defend in place.  The Applicant notes and the Board finds that the average age of the residents in these areas is eighty three (83) years old.   The Board further notes that the specific suites affected would be W204, W205, W206, W207, W304, W305, W306 and W307.  The board finds that the west wing sully sprinkler and in the event for evacuation  staircase is equipped with emergency lighting and opens seven (7) feet from the area of protection and ten (10) feet from a door to the outside.
	During the May 25, 2004 hearing, the Board was advised by Chief of Inspections William Howe that, as a residential care assisted living facility, staffing level at nigh could be two people.  The Board was further advised by the Applicant that currently all residents are capable of self-preservation and that he would work with the Fire Chief to maintain that status.  However, the Board had concerns as to how the Applicant and the Fire Chief would determine that status in the absence of drills to evaluate the patients ability to evacuate.	
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	In light of the limited staffing levels of this facility at night, and the Boards concern as to how patients would be evaluated in the absence of evacuation drills, a majority of the Board voted not to grant the Applicant the requested relief.  Accordingly, in the absence of five (5) votes in the accord, the Applicants request is deemed denied.  The Board notes that the initial relief granted by the Board in January is unaffected by the vote.

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)].