The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 9, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Walker, Jackson, Preiss, Filippi, Richard, Jasparro, Dias and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Octavio Vieira of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Preiss.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a June 16, 2005 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the September 9, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 16, 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, 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 
	1-2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1 and 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	3.  During the September 9, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had developed a plan for the correction of deficiency 3 in light of the structural problem faced in maintaining a small handicap lift within a stair enclosure.  The Board was further advised that the plan would be to provide a fire door with a magnetic hold-open device at the bottom of each stairway landing, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.  On the other side, the Applicant proposed to leave the bedroom with the self-closing door into the stairway and to block off the door to the study hall.  The State Fire Marshal's office appeared and recognized the structural hardship that full compliance with the code would impose upon the Applicant.  Accordingly, the Board hereby approves the Applicants plan of action with implementation at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	4-12.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.

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)].