The above-captioned cases were scheduled for hearing on October 26, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Richard, Jasparro and Dias were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of these cases.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Oscar Elmasian, James Bellamy and Robert Powers of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject schools have been individually inspected by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office and that the East Providence Fire Marshals Office has generated inspection reports which outline all of the deficiencies within these facilities.  The Board further finds that the Applicant plans to correct these deficiencies and has placed a 15 million bond on the November 2010 ballot of which 3.9 million will be utilized for code compliance.  The Board further finds that SMMA has prepared an executive summary of the proposed projects including specific timelines for completion and the approximate cost for each component of the fire code upgrades within these facilities.  The Board finds that the East Providence Fire Marshals Office has asked that all of the violations be included in the above timetables to bring these facilities into full compliance with the State Fire Code.  Finally, the Board finds that if the bond issue fails, the Applicant would be required to return with an alternative plan.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby approves the executive summary for the East Providence schools as prepared by SMMA and referred to by the parties as Plan A.  Accordingly, if the Applicant is successful in securing funding for this project, the Applicant shall have a time variance in order to complete the project as outlined in the executive summary.  In the event the Applicant is unsuccessful in securing the funding through bond referendum, the Applicant would be directed to return to the Board in January of 2011 in order to present an alternative plan of compliance.

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)].