As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on April 5, 2016 before a subcommittee of 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, Vice-Chairman Blackburn and Commissioner Thornton.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Stephen Hughes of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office and Deputy State Fire Marshal Thomas Dettore of the State Fire Marshal's Office.
APPLICANT: Attorney Norman Landroche, Jr. and Raymond Mignanelli.
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 Richard Mignanelli (owner) of RJRS, Inc., 3347 South County Trail, East Greenwich, RI dated February 29, 2016.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  160041 opened on March 4, 2016.
4.	The matter was initially before the Board on March 15, 2016 at which time it was reassigned to April 5, 2016 for the Applicant to develop and return with a plan of action.
5.	A subsequent hearing on the Application was conducted on April 5, 2016 at 1:00 PM before a subcommittee of the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
6.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Vice-Chairman Blackburn to grant the Applicant the relief as in accordance with his proposed plan of action.  The motion passed on a 3 to 0 vote.
7.	The subcommittee recommendations were subsequently presented to the Board for acceptance on April 12, 2016 at which time Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Pearson, Sylvester and Booth were in attendance.  Deputy State Fire Marshal Thomas Dettore requested to address the Board prior to the vote on the subcommittee findings and indicated that both the State and East Greenwich Fire Marshals Offices objected to the granting of the proposed relief approved by the subcommittee.  At that time a motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to reject the subcommittee recommendation and deny the Applicant relief.  The motion failed on a 4 to 0 vote with Commissioner Jackson abstaining from the vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  160041 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  160041 dated February 29, 2016 and filed on March 4, 2016.
2.	East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated February 3, 2016.
3.	East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office photographs (14), site floor plan and facility web page [undated] submitted March 14, 2016.
4.	Applicants site floor plan  A-1 [undated] submitted March 14, 2016.
5.	Applicants aerial photograph & copy of State Fire Marshal's Office occupant load placard.
6.	Reschedule Notice dated March 17, 2016.
7.	Letter to the Board from Norman Landroche, Esq. dated April 5, 2016.


EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the April 5, 2016 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 February 3, 2016 inspection report compiled by the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office during the April 5, 2016 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 3, 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 1-story assembly occupancy presently undergoing construction of a new addition.
3.	The building is of Type V (000) construction and is not provided with approved sprinkler protection and has a compliant fire alarm system.
4.	There is no objection by the East Greenwich or State Fire Marshals Offices to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board declines to grant the Applicant the relief proposed by the April 5, 2016 subcommittee and directs that the matter be reassigned to May 10, 2016 and reheard in accordance with Fire Safety Code section 6-2-9.

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: Fire Safety Code, 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: Fire Safety Code, 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: Fire Safety Code, 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:  Fire Safety Code, 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: Fire Safety Code, 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)].