As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on Tuesday, December 19, 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, Sylvester, Booth and Thornton.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael OBrien of the State Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: William Ingram and Kenneth Satterley.
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 Dennis Roy (owner) of 100 Bullocks Point Avenue, East Providence, RI dated October 17, 2017.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  170146 was opened on November 2, 2017.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on December 19, 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 Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Booth 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  170146 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  170146 dated October 17, 2017 and filed on November 2, 2017.
2.	State Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated September 27, 2017.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the December 19, 2017 hearing as exhibits:

1.	Letter of authorization for William Ingram from Dennis Roy.

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 27, 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 19, 2017 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 27, 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 3-story with basement business occupancy consisting of approximately sixteen thousand seven hundred four (16,704) square feet (gross area) and originally built in 1910.
3.	The building is of Type III (200) construction, does not have a compliant fire alarm system and is provided with an approved 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.	This deficiency has been corrected.
2.	This deficiency has been corrected.
3.	This deficiency has been corrected.
4.	This deficiency has been corrected.

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).

As all current violations have been corrected to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's Office, the file is now closed.

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)].