The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 38, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jackson, Filippi and Jasparro were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Carey of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a January 31, 2007 inspection report compiled by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshals Office during the August 28, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the January 31, 2007 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.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 by installing an approved new fire alarm system within this facility.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 2, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's office, by providing approved sprinkler coverage in the basement of this facility, and extending that coverage into the stairwells servicing the basement of this facility.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant will correct deficiency 3 by providing an approved evacuation plan for the kindergarten and first grade students occupying above the level of exit discharge. 
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 15.2.1.1 and 7.1.3.2.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing egress system construction and stairway door construction with an approved system of sprinkler heads installed throughout the stairways of this facility.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by providing the approved emergency lighting in this facility when they installed the new fire alarm system.
	6-7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 6 and 7 as maintenance items at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 8 by providing the cited first floor windows with swinging grilles that would allow for exit discharge through these windows as rescue windows.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing configuration of the basement windows in light of the sprinkler coverage the Applicant shall provide in the basement.
	9.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 15.2.1.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of the cited classrooms with sprinkler coverage in these areas as approved by the East Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	10.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 10 as outlined in item 9 above.
	11.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 11 by providing the cited detection and maintaining it in good repair.
	12.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 15.2.2.2.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing width of the cited doors to the basement girls and boys restrooms.  In granting this variance on the basis of structural hardship, the Board notes that these areas shall also be sprinklered in accordance with the plan of action.
	12(1).  During the August 28, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board approved the Applicants plan to extend sprinkler lines into the utility rooms and to uncover the louvers on the first floor of this facility.  
	13(2).  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 13(2) by repairing the cited penetrations in the ceiling of the boiler room of this facility.
	14.  During the hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the storage in the stairwell had been cleared out.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize a locked closet with an approved sprinkler head and one-hour rating in this area.  However, the locked closet shall only maintain non-combustible chair storage.
	15.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 15 by replacing the cited cover plate of the electrical junction box.
	16.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 16 by removing the cited extension cord and eliminating the potential overload on the cited circuits.
	17.  The Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshal's office are hereby authorized to address deficiency 17 pursuant to a plan of action developed by the parties.
	18.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency  18 by removing the cited obstruction.
	19.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has submitted a plan to address deficiency 19.
	20.  The Board notes that this facility was one of several facilities subject to a blanket variance.  Accordingly, the Board directs the Applicant to correct the deficiencies within the time frames provided by the blanket variance.

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)].