The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 13, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Burlingame, Richard, Blackburn, Preiss, Pearson, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Walsh of the Cumberland Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner OConnell to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 9, 2006 inspection report compiled by the Cumberland Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Cumberland Fire Marshals Office during the June 13, 2006 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 9, 2006 inspection report 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. 
	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 State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.1.2.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing width of the egress doors servicing floor one and floor two of this facility.  This variance is granted on the basis of structural hardship in the absence of an objection by the Cumberland Fire Marshal's office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.3.2.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the main exit stairs without separation from the corridor on the first floor.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant maintains a total of four (4) means of egress in this fully sprinklered building of masonry construction.  
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 7.2.1.4.1 and 7.2.1.4.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited swing of the doors separating the corridor from the lobby leading to the main entrance of this facility.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has taken off the exit sign from this area and that the cited doors will be locked after hours.  During the June 13, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was further advised that the Applicant is maintaining a clear path of egress travel throughout this facility.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.1.5.1 in order to allow the Applicant to lock the cited doors separating the corridor from the lobby area on the basis of security hardship.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has sufficient alternative egress from this facility.
	5.  The Board has been advised that there are two (2) potential main entrances to this building.  Accordingly, the Board directs the Applicant to work with the Cumberland Fire Marshal's office, and to have the Cumberland Fire Marshal's office designate the entrance that shall be deemed to be the primary access to the building.  
	6.  During the June 13, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that there shall be additional non-egress doors that are utilized in the normal operation, but locked when the facility is closed down in order to segregate the spaces.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the situation to continue on the condition that the Applicant maintains at least two (2) remote means of approved egress from all spaces concerned.
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)].