The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 21, 2003 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Filippi, Newbrook, Richard, O’Connell, Preiss and Wahlberg were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the January 21, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had recently converted an existing nursing home to a day-care occupancy. The Board was further advised that this facility has a municipally connected fire alarm system, an emergency generator and approved exit signs. The Board was further advised that this facility is fully sprinkled with the exception of the emergency generator enclosure area because this space is not heated. It is the understanding of the Board that all of the major fire protection systems in this facility are currently in place and in good working order.
	
The Board was further advised that the inspector from the State Fire Marshal’s Office, who had conducted the most recent inspection, was out of state and unable to attend the January 21, 2003 hearing. The Board was further advised that, due to other time constraints, the State Fire Marshal’s Office did not have the opportunity to present, and/or review with the Applicant, a formal comprehensive inspection report. 

Further, the Board was advised that the Applicant, unaware of any fire code deficiencies, had scheduled the opening of this facility for the week of this hearing. 

Finally, the Board finds that the cited deficiencies appear to be more technical in nature and do not raise immediate concern for the actual life safety of the occupants of this facility. 
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. In light of the fact that all of the major life safety systems (fire alarm, sprinkler system, exit signage etc.) are in place and fully operational, the Board hereby authorizes the State Fire Marshal’s Office to approve the Applicant’s request for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO). The TCO approval shall not exceed a period of sixty (60) days. During the above time period, the State Fire Marshal’s Office is directed to present the Applicant with Applicant with a formal list of deficiencies and the Applicant is directed to work with the State Fire Marshal’s Office in developing a comprehensive plan of action for the fire safety of this facility. In the event the parties determine that variances should be requested, the Board shall allow the Applicant to re-petition under the original file number in this case.

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)].

This decision was mailed on 1-24-03.