The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 23, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Pearson, Coutu and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard A. Waterman of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a March 8, 2002 inspection report compiled by the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office. The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office during the September 23, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 8, 2002 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein.
	
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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The egress questions identified in deficiency #1 were addressed by the Board during the September 23, 2003 hearing on this matter and are outlined below.  
	
2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-2(f) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing rating of the cited corridors within this facility.  This variance is granted on the basis of structural hardship in the absence of an objection by the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office.
	
3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a fire escape access route through bedrooms within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to remove all locks and locking devices from those bedroom doors through which access to the fire escape system is achieved.
	
4(a).  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the cited basement stairway of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has provided approved ninety (90) minute doors within the main corridor system of this facility, to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office.  The above variance is based on structural hardship.
	
4(b).  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing basement stairway construction as outlined in item 4(a) above.  
	
4(c).  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the cited rear stairway from the right side of this facility.  This variance is based on structural hardship.
	
4(d).  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the rear stairway on the left side of this facility as outlined in item (c) above.  This variance is also based on structural hardship.
	
5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d) by providing the cited stairways with approved handrails at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office.
	
6.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-6 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing swing of the cited egress doors of this facility.  This variance is again based on structural hardship in the absence of an objection by the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office.
	
7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d), 7(e) and 7(f) at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office by providing the cited egress doors with approved self-closing devices. 
	
8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 8(e) and 8(f) at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office by providing the egress system of this facility with approved fire rated doors.
	
9.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 9(a) and 9(b) by providing this facility with approved exit signage at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office and that this facility is further protected with approved emergency lighting at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office.
	
10.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-13 and NFPA Standard 10, 1988 edition, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain approved fire extinguishers within each of the apartment units of this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that the above fire extinguishers have been installed.
	
11.  As a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to maintain the fire alarm system of this facility as an approved system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshal’s office.
	
12.  During the September 23, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had corrected deficiency #12 by relocating the cited smoke detectors within the bedroom units of this facility.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	
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. ( See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-17).
	
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: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18)  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: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-19).  

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 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: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).
	
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 [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].