As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on September 13, 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 Richard, Filippi, Jackson, Booth and Davison.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy  State Fire Marshal John Mackay of the Westerly Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Robert Ornstein, Alfred Oakes and Attorney Thomas Liguori.
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 Robert Ornstein (authorized representative) of OHS Properties, LLC, 8 Sound Shore Drive -- 140, Greenwich, CT dated June 29, 2016.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  160097 opened on July 1, 2016.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on September 13, 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 Richard to grant the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 7 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  160097 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  160097 dated June 29, 2016 and filed on July 1, 2016.
2.	Westerly Fire Marshals Office Plan Review Report (email) dated July 1, 2016.
3.	Letter of authorization for Robert Ornstein from Daniel A. King dated June 29, 2016.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the September 13, 2016 hearing as exhibits:

1.	AHJs photographs (2).

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 July 1, 2016 plan review report compiled by the Westerly Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Westerly Fire Marshals Office during the September 13, 2016 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 1, 2016 plan review 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 3-story with basement 1-family dwelling being converted into a lodging & rooming house occupancy consisting of approximately six thousand one hundred thirteen (6,113) square feet and originally built in 1848.
3.	The building is of wood frame construction and will have a compliant fire alarm system and will be provided with an approved NFPA 13R automatic sprinkler system.
4.	There is no objection by the Westerly Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of RILSC section 26.3.1.1.3 and 24.2.2.3 by allowing the existing third floor bedroom windows to remain in use as a secondary means of escape.
2.	In consideration of the relief granted herein, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the fire alarm system of this facility with emergency forces notification and that this 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: 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)].