The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Blackburn, Richard, Preiss, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Lisa Krapf of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the September 16, 2008 hearing on this matter and upon the review of the submitted documentation in this case, the Board finds that on June 27, 2008 the Providence Fire Marshal's office issued a conditional approval of the Applicants planned renovation for this facility conditioned upon the Boards review of the Applicants proposed equivalent fire protection of the new stair enclosure to be located within ten (10) feet of the windows of the existing building.  The Board further finds that the current Hanley wing renovation project has required the addition of a new emergency exit only stair tower at the south end of the building.  The Board was further advised and finds that in order to reduce supplying any additional structural lateral loads to the existing structure relative to a seismic event, that the Applicant prefers that the new emergency exit only stair tower be constructed as an open structure with weather protection from wind blown snow, rain and ice accumulation as opposed to a masonry fire-rated enclosure.  The Board was further advised and finds that it was also the Applicants preference to retain the very limited glazing on the wall adjacent to the new stair tower to allow for limited natural day light into the classroom spaces.  In order to provide the new stair tower with protection, the Applicant is seeking relief from the required ten-foot separation distance and has requested an alternative protection method to the glazing area by means of a specific application of a window sprinkler system.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant put fire dampers in the louvers at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's Office.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to implement his plan of action for the sprinkler protection of the windows within ten (10) feet of the proposed emergency egress stair tower, as outlined in the July 25, 2008 plan details submitted to the Board.  Finally, the Board directs the Applicant to correct this and all other deficiencies within this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office, prior to the re-occupancy of this 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 Applicants 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 Boards 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 Boards 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)].