The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 21, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Walker, Preiss and Jasparro were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Chief Plan Review Officer Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with those of a September 17, 2010 plan review report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the September 21, 2010 hearing on this matter as was a September 10, 2010 letter submitted by Hughes Associates in support of the requested equivalencies.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 17, 2010 plan review report of the State Fire Marshals office along with the September 10, 2010 letter from Hughes Associates 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.  (10-2497-VN)  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize his proposed equivalency for those restrooms with air transfer openings from the egress corridor.  Specifically, the proposed equivalency as outlined in the September 10, 2010 letter from Hughes Associates has been deemed by the Board as an alternative way to comply with the code.
	During the September 21, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board further addressed and clarified the issue of the Applicants use of rated glass within the rated assemblies of this facility.  The Board hereby approves the use of properly installed rated glass within wall assemblies at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board notes that the product suggested by the Applicant is acceptable to the State Fire Marshals Office and that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection to this equivalency.
	2.  (10-2494-VN)  It is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 2 at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the State Fire Marshals Office.
	3.  (10-2495-VN)  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to accept the Applicants proposed equivalency as outlined in the September 10, 2010 letter and modified herein.  Accordingly, the Applicant shall provide the cited protection throughout the lobby area as outlined in the September 10, 2010 letter.  In addition, as a condition of this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide this area with an approved draft stop and closely spaced sprinkler heads in the lobby area, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	4-6.  (10-2474-VN; 10-2476-VN; 10-2493-VN)  It is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct the fourth, fifth and sixth deficiencies as outlined in the September 17, 2010 plan review report of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	7.  (10-2470-VN)  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the State Fire Marshals Office to calculate the exit access length as fifty feet (50) from the front door of the study room of this facility or seventy-five feet (75) from the assembly areas.  Accordingly, it is the understanding and direction of the Board that the current travel distance as outlined on the plans complies with the code.  Finally, the Board notes that the study area would not be allowed to maintain sleeping, and would therefore be considered less hazardous by the State Fire Marshals Office.
	8-20.  It is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth deficiencies as outlined in sequence on the September 17, 2010 plan review report of the State Fire Marshals 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 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)].