The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on November 15, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Preiss, and Filippi were present.  Commissioners Blackburn and Burlingame recused themselves from consideration of this case and therefore the matter was addressed by a subcommittee of the Board.  The subcommittee recommendations were thereupon reviewed and approved by the full Board on November 29, 2005.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Newbrook, Filippi, OConnell and Pearson were present.  Commissioners Blackburn and Burlingame again recused themselves from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented at the original hearing by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The original motion to approve the plan of action for this facility was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Filippi on November 15, 2005.  The motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Vice Chairman Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook during the November 29, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Both motions were unanimously approved by the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds this facility to be an educational occupancy.  During the November 15, 2005 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant has an existing fire alarm system in this facility and needs time to install a new system.  The Board further was advised and finds that the Applicant has existing non-compliant stairs in the facility and needs time in order to bring them into compliance.  The Board further finds that the building is fully sprinklered and alarmed and these systems just need to be upgraded to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals office.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies in the facility have been corrected by the Applicant.
	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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (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 the Applicant a time variance until September 1, 2006 in which to upgrade the existing fire alarm system of this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals office and to further provide this facility with an approved set of compliant stairs at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals office.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that this facility is fully sprinklered and alarmed and that these systems just need upgrading.
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)].