The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 10, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Pearson, Filippi, Coutu and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Jeffrey Johnson of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Coutu 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 February 25, 2003 inspection report compiled by the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office during the June 10, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 25, 2003 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 Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the egress system of this facility as modified herein.
	
2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain an egress route through the kitchens of the apartments of this facility.  This variance is based on structural hardship.
	
3.  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 wall and ceiling constructions within the stairways of this facility.  The Board further grants a variance from the above provisions in order to allow the stairways to maintain their winding nature.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected the remainder of deficiency #3 by providing the cited stairways with approved handrails installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s office.
	
4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.16-6 in order to allow the Applicant to provide each of the egress system door jambs of this facility with approved solid core wood doors maintaining an approximate fire rating of twenty (20) minutes.  The above doors shall be further equipped with spring loaded hinges installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal.  Finally, the Board grants a variance from the above provisions in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing swing of the cited egress doors of this facility.
	
5.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #5 by removing the combustibles from the basement of this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has also provided the furnace within the basement with an approved remote switch.
	
6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has provided this facility with an approved fire alarm system and emergency lighting.  Accordingly, as a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board directs the Applicant to maintain the above systems as required systems.
	
7.  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 provide each of the apartments units and the basement of this facility with approved fire extinguishers installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s office.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has already installed these fire extinguishers.
	
8.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of sixty (60) days from the date of this decision in order to correct all remaining Fire Code deficiencies and directives of the Board.

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)].