As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review [hereinafter the Board], pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws [RIGL] section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook, Vice-Chairman Blackburn and Commissioners Pearson, Jackson, Sylvester, Booth, Thornton and Davison.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Deputy State Fire Marshal David Pastore of the State Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Attorney Mark Russo.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under RIGL 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 John Holiver (owner) of Prospect CharterCare SJHSRI, 200 High Service Avenue, North, Providence, RI dated October 25, 2017.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  170142 was opened on October 27, 2017.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on December 12, 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 Vice-Chairman Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Thornton to grant the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on an 8 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  170142 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  170142 dated October 25, 2017 and filed on October 27, 2017.
2.	State Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated September 29, 2017.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the December 12, 2017 hearing as exhibits:

1.	AHJs status report and compliance approach report dated December 12, 2017.

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 29, 2017 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 December 12, 2017 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 29, 2017 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 industrial occupancy consisting of approximately seven thousand one hundred seventy-two (7,172) square feet (gross area) and originally built in 1953.
3.	The building is of Type II (222) construction, has a non-compliant fire alarm system and is not provided with an automatic sprinkler system.
4.	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.	EGRESS: The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of ninety-six (96) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RILSC sections 40.2 and 7.2.1.4 by developing and submitting a plan of action for the installation of an approved egress door for the cooling tower area of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
2.	EGRESS: The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of ninety-six (96) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RILSC sections 40.2 and 7.2.1.3 by developing and submitting a plan of action for the installation of an approved egress door for the emergency generator room area of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
3.	EGRESS: The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of ninety-six (96) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RILSC sections 40.2 and 7.2.1.3 by developing and submitting a plan of action for the installation of an approved egress door for the emergency generator room area of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
4.	EGRESS: The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of ninety-six (96) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RILSC sections 40.2 and 7.2.1.4 by developing and submitting a plan of action for the installation of an approved egress door for the cooling tower area of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
5.	FIRE ALARM SYSTEM: The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of three hundred sixty (360) days from the date of the decision to comply with the provisions of RILSC sections 40.3.4.2 and 9.6.2 by providing approved manual fire alarm boxes for this facility, 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).

Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the State Fire Marshals Office to extend the above timeline(s) for good faith compliance efforts being demonstrated by the Applicant in accordance with the provisions of Fire Safety Code, section 6-2-22.1.

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 RIGL 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 [FSC] 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: FSC 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 FSC or a revision of the above-cited classification.  (See: FSC 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 RIGL section 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:  FSC section 6-2-25).
4.	In accordance with RIGL section 23-28.3-5(e), any person who violates a final order of the Board may be subject to prosecution in the District Court with possible imprisonment for a term not exceeding one (1) year, or fined not more than one thousand dollars (1000) for each offense.
5.	In accordance with RIGL section42-35-12, 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: FSC section 6-2-18).  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [See: RIGL section 42-35-15(c)].