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 Gerald Bessette of the Barrington Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the February 10, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from the provisions of section 10-3.5 (extinguishing requirements).  Specifically, the area in question was a gymnasium.  However, due to flooding and dampness, this area was being converted into a basement for the limited use of storage.  There shall be no student occupancy on this level.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant shall provide approved two(2) hour separation between this area and the other occupancies and that no students shall be allowed to occupy this particular area. Accordingly, the Applicant requests relief from the above provisions in order not to provide sprinkler coverage in this storage area.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the applicant.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 10-3.5 in order to allow the Applicant not to provide approved sprinkler coverage in the newly created basement storage area of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board directs that this area shall be utilized only for storage and not otherwise occupied by students.

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)].