The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 19, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Evans, Newbrook, Pearson, OConnell and Richard were present.  Commissioners Burlingame and Blackburn recused themselves from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Marcello of the Oakland/Mapleville Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Vice Chairman Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers referenced in the Decision below correspond with those of a July 9, 2005 inspection report compiled by the Oakland-Mapleville Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Oakland-Mapleville Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the July 19, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 9, 2005 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, is understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  During the July 19, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant would correct the fire alarm deficiencies outlined in the July 9, 2005 inspection report by providing this facility with an approved full coverage fire alarm system as soon as possible.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide this facility with a full coverage fire alarm system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Oakland-Mapleville Fire Department as soon as physically possible, but no later than the commencement of the 2006-2007 school year in September of 2006.
	The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing dimensions on the cited middle stairwell in the north end of this facility.  Specifically, the Board grants a variance from those deficiencies outlined in item 20 of the July 9, 2005 inspection report.
	Finally, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance to correct all of the remaining deficiencies outlined in the July 9, 2005 inspection report, on or before the commencement of the 2006-2007 school year in September of 2006.

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)].