The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Filippi, Pearson, Preiss, Richard, Jasparro, Walker and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Brian Gartland of the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioner Pearson 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 a July 6, 2009 plan review report compiled by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the March 23, 2010 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 6, 2009 plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards 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 this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 by providing the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office with approved plans and cut sheets for the fire alarm system of this facility.  
	2.  During the March 23, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that there was an on-site meeting with the fire marshal, the building official and the Applicant's architect in order to assess the windows being proposed to be utilized as means of escape.  The Board was further advised that the windows do not meet the actual dimensions, however both sashes can be removed which allows for complete use of the window cavity.  The Board has been advised that this arrangement is sufficient under the building code and that the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office has no objection to the Applicant maintaining this arrangement for means of escape based on compliance with the International Building Code Standards.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 31.2.1.2 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing proposed means of escape windows from this facility which are approved for means of escape under the building code.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office has no objection based on compliance with the International Building Code standards.

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)].