The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on April 9, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, and Commissioners Dias, Jasparro and Richard were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case and therefore it was heard by a subcommittee of the Board.  A motion was made by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner to recommend that the full Board grant the relief outlined herein to the full Board during the April 23, 2013 hearing.  
	The above captioned case was most recently scheduled for review by the full Board on April 23, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Jasparro, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioners Burlingame and Blackburn abstaining.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	A summary of the subject facility was submitted by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office in a March 25, 2013 letter addressed to the Board from Lt. James F. Bellamy.  The Board hereby incorporates that summary as its initial findings of fact in this matter.  The Board further had before it a March 21, 2013 letter from the Applicants consulting engineer, Ramzi. J. Loqa, P.E.  The Board hereby adopts the information in the March 21, 2013 letter as its follow-up findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant or modification by the Board 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 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 notes that in a fully sprinklered building a one-hour separation wall is required between an A-2 and a B use group in order to satisfy mixed-use requirements.  The Board notes that the Applicant is requesting relief in order to maintain a glass wall between the assembly/cafeteria area and the remainder of the building.  The Board notes that this facility shall be fully sprinklered and alarmed and it shall be constructed of non-combustible construction components.  The Board further notes that there are an ample number of exits satisfying and exceeding the minimum code requirement.  The Board further notes that the assembly and business use constitute approximately 12.9  of the main floor and only 2.9 over the permissible accessory areas.  The Board further notes that the Applicant is proposing an additional sprinklered deluge on the cafeteria side of the tempered glass of this facility, similar to that of atrium requirements.  During the hearing, the parties were advised that the other side of the wall could be provided with additional engineered heads in order to cover the entire glass surface, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office. 
	Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the tempered glass wall between the cited occupancies of this facility for security purposes.  As a condition of this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide a sprinkler deluge system on the cafeteria side of the tempered glass wall, and to further provide additional engineered heads to ensure that the entire glass surface of the other side of the wall is covered by the sprinkler system.  The Board directs the Applicant to complete this project prior to occupancy of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence 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 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)).