The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 3, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Filippi, Preiss, Newbrook, Richard, Wahlberg, Pearson, Coutu, Burlingame and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Roger Henson of the Barrington Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to deny the Applicant’s requested relief.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with the items listed in an August 23, 2002 inspection report by the Barrington Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Barrington Fire Marshal’s Office during the June 3, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the August 23, 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.(Unit A).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #1 in Unit A by removing all obstructions in the exit passageway through the landing for the basement stairway.
	
2.(Unit A).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #2 in Unit A by providing this facility with an approved fire extinguisher.
	
1. (Unit B). It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #1 in Unit B by removing all obstructions and storage within the cited exit passageway.
	
2.(Unit B). It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #2 in Unit B by providing this facility with an approved fire extinguisher installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Barrington Fire Marshal’s office.
	
1.(Entire building). The Board was advised during the June 3, 2003 hearing on this matter that the Applicant sought variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.17-4 in order not to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system.  After much discussion, it was noted by the Board that alternative fire protection covering both the two business occupancies and the residential occupancy above would probably not provide the level of safety which can be secured by the installation of a fire alarm system.  Accordingly, the Board denies the Applicant’s requested variance and directs the Applicant to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of  the Barrington Fire Marshal’s office within a reasonable time table established by the Barrington Fire Marshal’s office.

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)].

Decision mailed on 9-05-03.