The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 4, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Filippi, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, OConnell, Evans, Coutu, and Pearson were present.  The Cranston Fire Marshals Office was not in attendance.  However, the Board was subsequently advised that they had no objection to the requested relief provided the Applicant utilize the 1999 edition of NFPA 13.  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 Board finds that this facility is a proposed day care.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has requested to construct the day care in accordance with the NFPA 101, Life Safety Code 2000 edition.  The Board further finds that the NFPA 101, 2000 edition also references the NFPA 13, 1999 sprinkler standards.  Finally, the Board has been advised that the Cranston Fire Marshals Office has no objection to the Applicants utilization of the latest Life Safety Code in the construction of this facility.
	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 defined in Section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.	The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the 2000 edition of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code in the construction of this proposed day care.  Finally, in granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that this facility shall be fully sprinkled in accordance with the 1999 edition of NFPA 13 and shall be further fully fire alarmed to the satisfaction of the Cranston Fire Marshals Office.	

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.  
	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.  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.  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.  
	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)].