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 Deputy State Fire Marshal Kaitlyn Foley of the State Fire Marshal's office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Filippi 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 4, 2006 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the State Fire Marshal's Office and the Applicant during the February 5, 2009 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 4, 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 
	1-12.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	13.  During the February 5, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that typically there are two (2) people in the upper level of this facility with a maximum potential of eight (8) people.  The Board was further advised that the upper level has two means of egress but these are not remote.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 39.2.4.1 and 7.4.1.1 through 7.4.1.6 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain a single approved means of egress from the second floor along with an unapproved egress for the limited occupancy of the second floor.  In light of the above, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshal's office has no objection.
	14.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 39.2.2.3 and 7.2.2.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited dimensional criteria for the stairs within this facility as outlined in the December 4, 2006 inspection report.  Again, the Board notes that the State Fire Marshal's office has no objection.

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.