The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 15, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Filippi, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Preiss and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Bento of the Portsmouth Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Dias to reaffirm the prior variance granted to this facility with additional restrictions.  The motion passed over the objection of Commissioners Preiss and Blackburn.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a July 20, 2005 inspection report compiled by the Portsmouth Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Portsmouth Fire Marshals Office during the March 15, 2011 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 20, 2005 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 sections 7.1.3.2.1 and 8.2 and their referenced standards in order to reaffirm a prior variance granted to the Applicant to maintain the existing glass doors and assemblies within the stairwells of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that this facility maintains an approved municipally connected fire alarm system and complete sprinkler system and that the Portsmouth Fire Marshals Office has no objection.  As a condition of reaffirming this variance, the Board further directs the Applicant to maintain the full sprinkler and fire alarm coverage along with magnetic hold-open devices, if necessary.

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)].