As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on February 16, 2016 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 Booth, Jackson, Thornton and Walker.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Wayne Clark of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Paul Galluscio, Stephen Jackson and Ross Cann.
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 Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Paul Galluscio (authorized representative) of 30 Bellevue Avenue, Newport, RI dated January 7, 2016.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  160003 opened on January 7, 2016.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on February 16, 2016 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 Walker and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 5 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  160003 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  160003 dated January 7, 2016 and filed on January 7, 2016.
2.	Newport Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated January 6, 2016.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the February 16, 2016 hearing as exhibits:

1.	Applicants design drawings [11 pages] dated January 13, 2016.

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 January 6, 2016 inspection report compiled by the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshals Office during the February 16, 2016 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the January 6, 2016 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.
2.	The building is an existing (reconstructed) 3-story apartment (8 unit) occupancy.
3.	The building is of wood frame construction and is not provided with approved sprinkler protection and will have a compliant fire alarm system.
4.	The Board notes that the Applicant has provided increased safety provisions during the reconstruction of the building such as additional fire rated construction, firestopping and fire alarm installation.
5.	There was no objection by the Newport Fire Marshals Office prior to the granting of the relief outlined herein, however a strong objection was raised after the vote was taken to approve the relief.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

3.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of RILSC section 30.3.5.1 by allowing the omission of an automatic sprinkler system for the building.  In consideration of the relief granted herein, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the building with an approved fire alarm system with emergency forces notification and that it be deemed a required system.

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).

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)].