The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 7, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester, Blackburn and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshals David Cionfolo and Thomas Dettore of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	Based upon the documentation presented and the testimony taken during the August 7, 2012 hearing, the Board finds that the subject facility was an existing daycare that recently closed and will soon be reopened.  The Board further finds that the daycare is undergoing extensive renovation.  The Board further finds that the plans do not identify separation from the assembly above this facility.  The Board further finds that the assembly areas are only occupied on weekends.  The Board further finds that the Applicant is not providing separation between the assembly (Place of Worship) and daycare occupancies.  However, the Board finds that the Applicant is requesting a variance on separation with the installation of sprinkler coverage in this area.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies shall be corrected by the Applicant.
	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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance not to provide the subject daycare facility with separation from the Place of Worship occupancy.  As a condition of this variance, the Board notes that the Applicant shall provide the daycare occupancy with approved sprinkler coverage.

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)].