The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 5, 2002 at l:00 p.m. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Filippi, Richard, Evans, Burlingame, Newbrook, and Coutu were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Charles Lawrence of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a June 5, 2001 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the March 5, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 5, 2001 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.

	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.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #l by providing the basement of this facility with an approved fire extinguisher, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision.

2.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.l6-2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing fire escapes of this facility as an approved second means of egress.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the fire escapes are in good condition, and the Board further directs the Applicant to remove all locks and locking devices from the bedroom doors through which access to the fire escapes are achieved.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that this facility is currently protected by an approved local fire alarm system and an approved system of smoke detectors in accordance with Sections 23-28.25-4(a) and 23-28.34-2 through 4.

3.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.l6-2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the cited egress system walls of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide an approved Class “A” finish on the wainscoting of the corridor and to further maintain the above described fire alarm system as a required system.

4.	 The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.l6-5(a) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing non-segregated interior stairs of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection in light of the Applicant’s maintaining the fire alarm system of this facility.

5.	During the March 5, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the exterior doors cited were corrected by the Applicant.  The Board grants a variance, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing apartment doors with approved spring-loaded hinges.

6.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.16-6(c) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited twenty (20) minute steel doors in the existing wooden door jambs of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.

7.	It is the understanding of the Board that exit signs are not being requested by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office as a condition of the variances granted herein.

8.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.l6-l3 and NFPA Standard l0, l988 edition in order to allow the Applicant to provide each of the apartment units of this facility with an approved fire extinguisher, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision.

9.	During the March 5, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant was requesting a variance in order to maintain the existing winding stairs within this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants this variance based on structural hardship.

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)]