The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 28, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, O'Connell, Newbrook, Richard, Fang, Filippi and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John McDermott of the Newport 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 passed with Commissioner Coutu abstaining. 

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a June 26, 2000 inspection report complied by the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office during the  November 28, 2000 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 26, 2000 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 life safety code sections 20-2.2 and 5-2.2.5.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction, configuration and open nature of the cited central stairwell of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Newport Fire Marshal's office has no objection in light of the Applicant agreement to provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system and domestically supplied sprinkler system.

2. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code section 20-2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing dimensions of the cited doorways and corridors within this facility.  In granting this variance, on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding of the Board that the Newport Fire Marshal has no objection.

3. During the November 28, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant shall provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system. Accordingly, as a condition of the variances granted herein, the Applicant is directed to provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport Fire Marshal, in accordance with the provisions of section 23-28.25-4(a), within 120 days of the date of this decision.  The Board further directs the Applicant to provide each sleeping room of this facility with an approved single station AC smoke detector, within 120 days of the date of this decision.

4. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 4, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport Fire Marshal within 120 days of the date of this decision.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize spring loaded hinges or door closers on the cited doors.

5. The Board hereby grants a variance from the full automatic sprinkler system requirements for this facility in order to allow the Applicant to install a properly engineered system of domestically supplied sprinkler heads. The above system shall be designed to protect the common use areas and egress passageways of this facility.  The above system of domestically supplied sprinkler heads shall be installed at the direction to the satisfaction of the Newport fire Marshal, or designee, within 120 days of the date of this decision.  In reviewing this system, the Applicant’s engineer shall rely upon the flow and other hydraulic requirements as outlined in NFPA 101, 1997 edition, section 7-7.1.2 for limited coverage systems. Placement and number of heads shall be at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport Fire Marshal.

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 12-01-00.