The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 22, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Jasparro, Jackson, Preiss and Richard were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Kaitlyn Foley of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioners Filippi and Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the February 22, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board had before it a March 12, 2010 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The building description of the March 12, 2010 inspection report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the February 22, 2011 hearing on this matter.  The Board was further advised that the deficiencies within the report had been addressed by the Board in a prior case.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the building description of the March 12, 2010 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has returned to request the removal of a sprinkler head in the seclusion room of this facility.  The Board was further advised and finds that the staff shall continually observe any child placed within the seclusion room until the child is released.  The Board was further advised and finds that DCYF has given the Applicant the permission to remove the cited sprinkler head.  Finally, the Board was advised and finds that certain children placed in the seclusion room were attempting to break off the sprinkler head in the room.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to remove the sprinkler head within the seclusion room conditioned upon the staffs continual observation of any child placed in the seclusion room for the duration of that stay.  This variance is based upon the hardship outlined above and the Applicants agreement to provide total observation during the periods this room is occupied.

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)].