The above captioned case was originally heard by a subcommittee of the Board on August 2l, 2001.  The subcommittee’s recommendation was subsequently approved during an August 28, 2001 full hearing of the Board.  A Decision was thereupon issued on September l2, 2001.  The Applicant thereupon appealed the subcommittee’s determination to the full Board within the thirty- (30) day time frame.  A de novo hearing was conducted on October 23, 2001 at l:00 p.m.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, Coutu, Richard, Burlingame, O’Connell, Filippi, Newbrook, and Evans.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe and Deputy State Fire Marshal Kevin Murphy of the State Fire Marshal’s Office along with Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Dennis Laroque of the West Warwick Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to reaffirm the original Subcommittee’s Decision in this matter and to deny the Applicant’s request for modification. The motion was unanimous.  

FINDING OF FACT

The Board hereby incorporates its original findings in File No.:  0l0l86 and the referenced February 8, 2001 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  The Board further finds that all of the apartment doors and jambs within this facility have only an approximate fire rating of twenty (20) minutes as opposed to the required one (l) hour fire rating.  The Board further finds that the Applicant’s placement of 5/8” sheet rock on one side of the egress system walls of this facility, does not provide the egress system of this facility with an approved one (l) hour rating.  Finally, the Board finds that window access to the fire escapes of this facility is prohibited by code and that ladders on the fire escape system are also prohibited by code.  

Accordingly, the Board finds that the variances granted on the above items in its Decision in File No.:  0l0l86 could only be justified on the basis that the building would be provided with an approved fire alarm system to allow for rapid evacuation of the occupants.  In the absence of a fire alarm system, the Board finds that the Applicant would have to provide an approved UL listed one (l) hour fire rated assembly throughout the egress system of this facility, replace the existing doors and door jambs leading to each of the apartments with approved UL listed one hour doors and assemblies.  The Board further finds that in order to bring the fire escape into compliance, the Applicant would have to provide access to the fire escape through an approved door with approved panic hardware and to further redesign the fire escape to the proper width and eliminate the use of all ladders on the fire escape.  Finally, the fire escape stair would have to terminate at ground level.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	In light of the structural hardships which would be imposed upon the Applicant in bringing this facility into full compliance with the fire code covering existing occupancies, the Board granted a number of variances which were contingent upon the Applicant’s installation of a fire alarm system.  Accordingly, the Board hereby denies the Applicant’s appeal of the fire alarm mandates of the Subcommittee’s Decision issued on December l2, 2001.  Specifically, the entire Decision issued on December l2, 2001 is hereby affirmed.  All variances issued in the Decision remain valid as long as the Applicant complies with the remaining mandates of the Decision.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s Decision, shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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 Board’s 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.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)]