The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on at  January 2, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Richard, Burlingame, Pearson and Filippi were present.  Member Coutu recused himself from participation in this case. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Roland St. George of the Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the January 2, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds at the Applicant sought relief from the provisions of NFPA 101, section 5.2.1.6.1 in order to maintain delayed egress locks at two doorway locations separating the entrance lobby from the first floor classroom/day care areas.  The Board was further advised and finds that the proposed hardware provides panic devices from the classroom side of the dividing doors to the lobby area.  Doors leading from the lobby to the classroom area have closers and a latching gauged by electric strike. Finally, the two electric strikes are wired to fail open with power loss and to disengage under an alarm condition. 

The Board was further advised and finds this facility is protected by an approved fire alarm system and an approved sprinkler system. The requested variance is based on security hardship. It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire safety code deficiencies have been 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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 101 section 5.2.1.6.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain delayed egress locks at the two doorway locations separating the entrance lobby from the first floor classroom/day care areas.  This variance is based on security hardship in light of the Board's findings as outlined above.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].