The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on 2/11/2014 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Booth, Walker, Thornton, Jackson, Richard, Blackburn and Burlingame were present.  Also present was Department of Administration Deputy Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.  The Applicant was represented by Mr. Kevin Toomey of Hughes Associates.  A motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioners Booth and Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with the recusal of Commissioners Blackburn and Walker who did not participate in the hearing or the vote.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	The above-captioned cases were originally scheduled for hearing on June 4, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Pearson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal and Acting Fire Chief Oscar Elmasian of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Vice Chairperson Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined therein.  The motion was unanimous.

	On February 3, 2014 Mr. Kevin Toomey of Hughes Associates requested that a typographical error of material fact that appears in the Decision be corrected in accordance with Board Rules and Regulations section 6-2-16.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

	Accordingly, the Board hereby directs that the Decisions in the above-captioned files be amended to read as follows:

	1.  During the June 4, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant was requesting a variance in order to allow the means of egress windows within this facility to remain as is based upon their code analysis.  The East Providence Fire Marshal appeared and advised the Board that he had no objection to this relief in light of the proposed fire alarm upgrade of this facility and the full compliance with the other requirements of the code.  The Board was further advised that the opening of the windows was approximately 3.8 square feet and that there had been an exception of the code allowing for 3.3 square feet of window opening for existing windows in frames of wood construction.  The Board was further advised that upon replacement of the existing windows, the Applicant would, in the future, utilize compliant windows.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 31.2.1.2 and 24.2.2.1.1 along with their referenced standards, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing dimensions of all of the windows for rescue throughout the eight (8) buildings noted above.  In granting this relief, the Board directs the Applicant, upon future replacement of these windows, to utilize windows that are in full compliance with the code.  In light of the above, it is the understanding of the Board that the East Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in which to develop and submit a plan of action for the installation of fire alarm systems within these facilities.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional one hundred fifty (150) days in order to implement the above plan of action, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	In granting the above relief, it is the understanding of the Board that there is no objection by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the East Providence Fire Marshals Office to extend the above timelines for good faith efforts being demonstrated by the Applicant.


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)].