The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 7, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, Richard, Pearson, Coutu, Preiss, Wahlberg and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Waterman of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss 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 December 12, 2002 inspection report compiled by the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the January 7, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 12, 2002 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any deficiency corrected 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 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 Section 23-28.16-2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the cited egress corridors of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the Applicant has provided this facility with an approved local fire alarm system and that the Applicant shall further provide this facility with a rapid entry system (Knox box), at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by providing each of the cited apartment units with approved solid core doors and closures, installed to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.16-5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the common stairways throughout this facility.  This variance is granted in the absence of an objection by the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office and in light of the Applicants agreement to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 by providing this facility with approved handrails, installed to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by properly reswinging the main egress doors of this facility to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal.
	6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 6 by providing the cited apartment doors with approved UL listed self-closing devices.
	7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 7 by providing this facility with approved exit signage.
	8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 8 by providing this facility with approved portable fire extinguishers.
	9.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has provided this facility with an approved local fire alarm system to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal.  Accordingly, as a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to maintain this fire alarm system as a required system.
	10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 10 by providing this facility with approved smoke detection, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.	


	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.  
	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.   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.  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.  
	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)].