As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on January 24, 2017 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: Vice-Chairman Blackburn and Commissioners Filippi, Pearson, Sylvester, Thornton and Davison.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Scott Mooney, Sr. of the Providence Fire Marshals Office and Deputy State Fire Marshal James Gumbley of the State Fire Marshal's Office.
APPLICANT: Cecilia Doctor.
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 Cecilia Doctor (owner) of 202 Saratoga Street, Providence, RI dated October 9, 2016.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  160156 was opened on November 3, 2016.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on January 24, 2017 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 Commissioner Thornton 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  160156 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  160156 dated October 9, 2016 and filed on November 3, 2016.
2.	Providence Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated September 12, 2016.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the January 24, 2017 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 12, 2016 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the January 24, 2017 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 12, 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 4-story multiple/mixed use (mercantile and residential) occupancy consisting of approximately four thousand four hundred ninety-eight (4,498) square feet and originally built in 1969.
3.	The building is of Type V (000) construction and does not have a compliant fire alarm system and is not provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
4.	There is no objection by the Providence Fire Marshals Office or the State Fire Marshal's Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of ninety (90) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RILSC section 37.3.4.1 by completing the installation of an approved fire alarm system throughout the facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
2.	This deficiency is not applicable in accordance with Blanket Variance  14-05.

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 constitutes a final order of the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review as set forth in R.I.G.L. section 42-35-12 and 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.	In accordance with R.I.G.L 42-35-12, 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)].