The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 5, 2009 at 9:30 A.M.  At that time, a subcommittee of the Board consisting of Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Dias, Filippi and Jasparro were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Fisher of the Saylesville Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Dias to recommend to the full Board that it grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
	The subcommittee recommendations were thereupon presented to the full Board on February 10, 2009.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  A motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook.  The motion was unanimous to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a December 19, 2006 inspection report compiled by the Saylesville Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Saylesville Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the February 5, 2009 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 19, 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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the 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 hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the stairway from the youth room unenclosed.  This variance is based upon structural hardship and the fact that the Applicant shall provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system.
	2-9.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have either been corrected by the Applicant or are no longer applicable in light of the Place of Worship amendments to the Code.
	10.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 10 by providing this complex with approved interior finishes in accordance with the guidelines established for Places of Worship, at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the Saylesville Fire District Fire Marshal's office.
	11.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiency 11 is moot under the fifteen-point plan for Places of Worship.
	12-14.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 12, 13 and 14 have either been corrected by the Applicant or are no longer applicable in light of the Place of Worship amendments to 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 above approved subcommittee recommendations now have the status of a full Board Decision.  Pursuant to R.I.G.L. 23-28.3-5(b)(4), if the Applicant is aggrieved by the approved subcommittee recommendations, the Applicant may appeal this Decision approving the subcommittee recommendations, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date below, by sending a request, to be heard before the entire Board, to the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal & Review, One Regan Court, Cranston, RI  02920.