The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 5, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Pearson, Burlingame, Coutu, Filippi and O'Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe, on an emergency basis, due to the absence of the Chief Plan Review Officer, George Hoyle.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds that the Applicant and his architect had submitted plans into the State Fire Marshal’s Office for review of this proposed child day care center.  The Board further finds that the Applicant’s architect has identified approximately six (6) deficiencies in this facility and has requested variances for all six (6).  The Board further finds that the Chief Plan Review Officer had advised the Board he would not be attending this hearing and that he did not care what the Board decides.  The Chief Plan Review Officer further referred any code questions to Chief of Inspections William Howe who would be in attendance.  This information was related to the Board by a faxed document dated March 9, 2005.  In light of the Chief Plan Review Officer’s position on the requested variances, the Board determined that it would be appropriate to grant all of the requested relief to the Applicant.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of table 7.2.2.2.1B and chapter 16 2.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing width of the rear exit stairs.  This variance is based on structural hardship.
	
2. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of chapter 16.1.2.1 in order to allow the Applicant not to maintain two (2) hour separations between use groups.  This variance is also granted on the basis of structural hardship.
	
3. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of table 7.2.2.2.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing winding stairs in the basement staircase of this facility.  This variance is also based on structural hardship.
	
4. The Board hereby grants variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the proposed means of egress from the basement and the main levels of this facility.
	
5. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of chapter 16.3.2.1.1(a) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing boiler room enclosure.  It is the understanding of the Board that the boiler room is located in another tenant space.
	
6. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of chapter 16.3.1 and 8.6.5(3) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the approximate forty five minute rating of the basement stair enclosure.
	
7. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct all remaining deficienies in this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State 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)].