The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 11, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame, Filippi and O'Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshal’s Office and Assistant Deputy Fire Marshal Kenneth Scandariato of the North Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Evans 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 an April 21, 2004 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshal’s Office in conjunction with the North Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State and Local Fire Marshal’s Offices during the January 11, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 21, 2004 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 understood to mean “in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal)”.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 19.3.7.7 and 19.3.8 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing width of the smoke barrier doors listed in the April 21, 2004 report.  Specifically, this variance is based on structural hardship because the doors are located in walls consisting of in-filled concrete block.  It is also the understanding of the Board that the cited doors would not be used in the transportation of patients.
	
2. The Board hereby finds that deficiency #2 is moot in this fully alarmed facility.

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)].