The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on July 26, 2005 and a decision was subsequently rendered by the Board.  By letter dated December 29, 2005 the Applicants representative sought clarification of item 13 of the original decision in this matter.  An initial hearing on this request was conducted on January 3, 2006 and the concluding hearing was conducted on January 10, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Newbrook and Preiss were present.  Commissioners Blackburn and Burlingame recused themselves from consideration of this case.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Richard to provide the parties with the interpretation of item 13 as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in file 050299 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that the Applicant sought clarification of item 13 of the original decision.  Specifically, the Board addressed the issue as to whether the level of exit discharge was required to be utilized as a main entrance to the facility.  
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  In reviewing deficiency 13, the Board notes that there was no Board directed requirement that the Applicant utilize the newly established exit to grade as a main entrance to this school.  The Board further notes that there is no specific code requirement mandating the use of a main entrance of a school instead of allowing access to the school through the other means of egress routes.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant shall not be required to utilize the exit from the lower level directly to grade as the exclusive means of access and egress to and from this school.  Accordingly, the Applicant may access this school through any entrance he deems most convenient for the operation of the school.
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)].