The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 10, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Howe of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook 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 an October 28, 2003 inspection report compiled by the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office during the February 10, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 28, 2003 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s 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 the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal)”.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #1 by providing the fire marshal with an approved copy of the latest sprinkler test for this facility.  It is the further understanding of the Board that this is a fully sprinklered facility tied into a municipally connected fire alarm system.	
	
2(a). The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.12-27 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited paneling in the multipurpose room.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide the cited paneling with an approved Class A finish at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal.  The Board further notes that the cited paneling is against a masonry foundation.  Finally, the Board notes that if the ceiling tiles are not melt away type tiles that they shall either be removed or replaced with melt away type tiles in the area where the sprinkler heads and other detection devices are located.  The Applicant shall have until the commencement of the 2004-2005 academic year to effect the above correction.
	
2(b). It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency#2(b) by removing the cited combustibles under the stage.
	
3(a). The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.12-30 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing classroom doors with existing sprinkler coverage.	
	
3(b). If the cited louver doors in the bathroom are part of the egress system shared with the place of assembly, these doors shall be made smoke tight and equipped with self-closures.  However, if they are not shared with a place of assembly, these doors may be maintained by the Applicant.  Accordingly, if these doors are not part of the shared egress system from the places of assembly within this building, they shall have a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.12-30 to be maintained.  However, if they are shared by a place of assembly, the Applicant is directed to make the above correction prior to the commencement of the 2004-2005 school year.
	
4. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.12-31 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing rating of the cited sprinklered stairways within this facility.
	
5(a)(b). It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #5(a)(b) by providing approved copies of the fire alarm test for this facility and by further conducting appropriate number of fire drills.
	
6. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #6 by repairing the cited exit signage.
	
7. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #7 by maintaining proper housekeeping within this facility.
	
8. During the hearing the question arose as to the status of the pre-k, kindergarten and 1st and 2nd grade children who may not be on the level of exit discharge.  The Board notes that a blanket variance has been granted in order to allow all of the school occupancies to correct this situation on or before the commencement of the 2004-2005 school year.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].