The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing before a subcommittee of the Board on January 19, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Couture of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Dias to recommend to the full Board that it grant the Applicant the relief outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

The above recommendations were thereupon presented to the full Board on February 8, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Preiss, Jasparro, Dias and Pearson were present.  A motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Pearson.  The motion was unanimous.  Accordingly, the subcommittee determination has the status of a full Board decision

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an August 21, 2008 inspection 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 January 19, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the August 21, 2008 inspection 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.  During the January 19, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the subcommittee was advised and finds that the daycare classrooms each have a direct exit to grade.  The subcommittee was further advised and finds that the Applicant has already upgraded the fire protection systems throughout this facility.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 17.1.2.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited separation including the floor-ceiling, bathroom and utility room separation between the business and daycare occupancies, thereby allowing the business use portion of this facility to be reviewed under the code provisions for existing business.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	2.  During the January 19, 2011 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the subcommittee was advised that the Applicant had corrected all of the cited penetrations between the daycare and business occupancies of this facility.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of sections 17.1.2.2 and 8.3.5.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing separation between the bathroom and the utility room of this facility in accordance with the relief outlined in item 1 above.  In granting this relief on the separation, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiency 3 is moot and not a violation of the code.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 by removing the cited paneling at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by providing this facility with a total complete fire alarm system installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the AHJ.

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 submitting a written appeal of the above subcommittee recommendations to the entire Fire Board for review, pursuant to Board Rule 6-2-9.  The Applicant shall thereupon be scheduled for hearing before the full Board of Appeal & Review.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this decision (RIGL 42-35-15(c)).