As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on July 26, 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, Vice-Chairman Blackburn and Commissioners Jackson, Sylvester, Thornton and Davison.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Deputy State Fire Marshal Kaitlyn Iannone of the State Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Steven Denoyelle.
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 Steven Denoyelle (authorized representative) of RI DOA - DCAMM, 14 Harrington Road -- Room 255, Cranston, RI dated May 11, 2016.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  160083 opened on May 24, 2016.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on July 26, 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 Vice-Chairman Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 6 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  160083 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  160083 dated May 11, 2016 and filed on May 24, 2016.
2.	State Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated September 23, 2015.
3.	State Fire Marshals Office Building Description  507-55 dated August 24, 2015.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the July 26, 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 September 23, 2015 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the July 26, 2016 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 23, 2015 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 residential board and care (6 residents) occupancy consisting of approximately three thousand twelve (3,012) square feet and originally built in 1991.
3.	The building is of Type V (000) construction and has a compliant fire alarm system and is not provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
4.	Hard-wired smoke alarms and carbon monoxide (CO) alarms are provided throughout the building.
5.	There is no objection by the State Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	[15-763-VN]  The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RIFC section 10.4.1 by developing and submitting a plan of action for the installation of an approved 13D automatic sprinkler system throughout the facility.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional one hundred fifty (150) days in order to implement the above plan of action, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.

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)].