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 14, 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 14, 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 common corridor walls within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the Applicant has agreed to provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system and further agreeing to install a rapid entry system (Knox box), at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.16-3(a) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a second means of egress from all four (4) apartments through each apartments kitchen.  This variance is based upon structural hardship and in light of the Applicants agreement to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by providing the cited apartment door jambs with approved solid core wood doors and further providing them with UL approved spring-loaded hinges, to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
	4.  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 cited front and rear common stairways of this facility.  In granting this variance on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding of the Board that the cited stairways are in good condition and that the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office has no objection in light of the Applicant providing this facility with an approved fire alarm system.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by properly swinging both the front and rear exit doors in the direction of egress travel.
	6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 6 by providing the apartment doors with approved self-closing devices, to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal.
	7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 7 by providing this facility with approved exit signage, to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal.
	8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 8 by providing this facility with approved portable fire extinguishers, to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal.
	9.  As a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to maintain the recently installed fire alarm system of this facility for the purposes of maintenance.
	10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 10 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)].