The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 20, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Walker, Jackson, Jasparro, Filippi, and Richard were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board adopts as its initial findings of fact the building description along with the description of the deficiencies originally outlined in the State Fire Marshal's October 18, 2005 inspection report.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has corrected all of the numbered deficiencies at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal.  The Board further finds that the question before it involves the securing of egress doors.  Finally, the Board hereby incorporates the October 18, 2005 inspection as modified above as its initial findings of fact.  Again, the Board notes that all of the listed numerical deficiencies have been corrected by the Applicant.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize magnetic locks interconnected with the fire alarm system in order to secure the egress system doors of this facility.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding and direction of the Board that these locks shall deactivate at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office in the event of fire alarm activation or power outage.

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)].