The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 7, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Filippi, Pearson, Jasparro, Preiss, Richard, OConnell, and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Lally of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman New brook and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with three inspection reports compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The specific reports were an October 12, 2004 report, (State Fire Marshal fire number 24-411), an October 30, 2006 inspection report (State Fire Marshal file number 24-411A), and an October 30, 2006 inspection report (State Fire Marshal file number 24-411B).  The above reports were utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the August 7, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the above State Fire Marshals reports as its initial finding 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 REQUEST
I.  October 12, 2004 Inspection Report (SFM file 24-411)
1-10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
11-12.  During the August 7, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by the State Fire Marshals Office that deficiencies 11 and 12 were moot and should  not be considered deficiencies based on the egress stairs servicing this facility providing direct access to the outside. 
13-16.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 13, 14, 15 and 16 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
II.  October 30, 2006 Inspection Report (SFM file 24-411A
     1-25.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
     26-29.  During the August 7, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Applicant advised the Board that to correct deficiencies 26, 27, 28 and 29 would require a full upgrade of the fire alarm system within this facility.  The Applicant further advised the Board that the engineering study for the upgrade of the fire alarm system has been approved along with funding for that study.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to complete his engineering study and upgrade the fire alarm system within this facility prior to the opening of the facility for the 2008/2009 academic year.  The Board understands that additional time is necessary, the applicant may return to the Board with a status report and a request for additional time to complete the project.
III. October 30, 2006 inspection report (SFM file 24-411B)
1.	During the August 7, 2007 hearing on the matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant maintained a curtain that would allow separation of the gymnasium into two (2) separate courts.  The Applicant further advised the Board that the curtain was at least twenty (20) years old and possibly thirty (30) years old.  However, neither the Applicant nor the State Fire Marshals Office had documentation on the flame resistance rating of the curtain.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to properly treat the curtain with approved flame retardant or develop an alternative plan of action approved by the State Fire Marshal prior to the commencement of the 2008/2009 academic year.  As noted above, in the event the Applicant runs into practical difficulties, the Applicant may return to the Board to request additional time or to review a new plan of action.
2-10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
11.  During the August 7, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board determined that the gymnasium of this Community College was a student occupied assembly area falling under the statutory sprinkler exception found in RIGL 23-28.6.21(b)(VI).  This determination was based upon the applicants testimony that the facility was utilized exclusively for school and student related events as opposed to commercial purposes.  In light of the above, the Board finds that deficiency 11 is not a violation of the State Fire Code.  However, in the future, if the Applicant wishes to utilize this facility for commercial events, the Applicant shall first provide this facility with approved sprinkler coverage in accordance with the remaining provisions of 23-28.6-21 of the Rhode Island General Laws.

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)].