The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 27, 2013 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Newbrook, and Commissioners Burlingame, Jackson, Thornton, Walker, Pearson and Booth were present. Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from participation in this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Susan Hawksley and Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve the Applicants plan as outlined herein.  The motion also allowed for a fuller discussion on the questions raised by the plan of action.  The motion to approve the plan of action subsequently passed by a majority vote of the Commissioners present, with Commissioner Burlingame voting in opposition. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an August 6, 2013 plan review report and Conditional Approval compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The Board also had before it an August 14, 2013 Updated Conditional Approval compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office and an August 14, 2013 Plan of Action developed by the Applicants Engineer, Hughes Associates.  The above documents were utilized by the Board, the Applicant, his Engineer and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the August 27, 2013 hearing on this matter. Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the above documents 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. The term approved, as used herein, shall mean approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) as defined in section 3.2.2 of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2012 Edition. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	By letter dated August 14, 2013, the Providence Fire Marshals Office has deleted Item 1 from the original August 6, 2013 Conditional Approval. Accordingly, the Board finds Item 1 to be moot and not a violation of the State Fire Code.
2.	During the August 27, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Applicants Engineer advised the Board that the Owner has agreed to raise the height of the guardrail at the top stairway landing so that it is forty-two (42) inches above the surface of the landing in accordance with section 7.2.2.4.5.3.  The Owner has further agreed to in-fill the existing guardrails so that their openings are limited to a maximum of four (4) inches in accordance with section 7.2.2.4.5.3.  In light of the above improvements, the Applicant has requested that he be granted relief on the remainder of the existing guardrail and handrail systems.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 7.2.2.4.2, 7.2.2.4.4.9 and 7.2.2.4.4.10 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the remainder of the existing guardrail and handrail system for the current proposed educational occupancy of students in the ninth through twelfth grades.  However, in the event the Applicant plans to admit lower aged children in the future, the Providence Fire Marshals Office may specifically request that the Board revisit this issue at that time and direct the Applicant to provide any additional safeguards deemed necessary prior to the admittance of the younger children.     
3.	As outlined in Item 2 above, it is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct Deficiency 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office. 
4.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct Deficiency 4 by providing approved outside heads on the emergency lighting system floor exit discharge at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office. 
5.	During the August 27, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Board temporarily adjourned the hearing in order to grant the parties the opportunity address their concerns and report back with an acceptable plan of action covering the upgrade of the fire alarm and sprinkler systems within this complex.  The Applicant agreed to reduce his time variance request from six (6) months to four (4) months and to further maintain a fire watch, by one of his employees, overseen by the Providence Fire Marshals Office, during all periods of student occupancy until the above systems were upgraded and approved.  Accordingly, the Board hereby approves the requested four (4) month time variance, from the date of this Decision, for the upgrade of the fire alarm and sprinkler systems within this complex with the above stipulations.  
6.	As outlined in Item 5 above, the Applicant shall also have a four (4) month time variance, from the date of this Decision, to correct Deficiency 6 by upgrading the sprinkler systems within this complex with the above stipulations.  
7.	The Board hereby grants a variance to allow the Applicant, as an alternative to infilling the atrium windows, to fix the windows in the closed position and to protect the existing windows with automatic sprinkler heads installed at each window opening prior to occupancy by the students. 
8.	The Board hereby leaves this file open until the complex has been brought into full compliance with the code at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  Accordingly, the Applicant and/or the Providence Fire Marshals Office may request that the Board hear any additional issues that may arise prior to the Applicants full compliance with the Code.

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)].