The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 23, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Evans, Burlingame, and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Mark St. Pierre of the Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame 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 a March 04, 2004 inspection report compiled by the Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office during the March 23, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 04, 2004 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. During the March 23, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the church hall in question maintains a limited occupancy of approximately 84 people.  The Board was further advised and finds that the pathway to the second means of egress is through a kitchen.  The Board was further advised and finds that this facility has recently been provided with an approved upgraded fire alarm system.  The Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office advised the Board that a reconfiguration of the egress system would impose structural hardship upon the Applicant.  Accordingly, the Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection to maintaining the current exit arrangement as modified herein.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2.4.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain primary means of egress along with a secondary emergency means of egress through the kitchen of this facility.
	
2. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 13.2.1 and 7.5.2.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain access to the exit discharge through the kitchen of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to develop a plan of action with the Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office for any time the hall is being utilized for social functions.  In light of the above, it is the understanding of the Board that the Harrisville Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.
	
3. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2.2.2.1 and 7.2.1.4.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing egress door as modified herein.  In granting this variance, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to re-swing the cited egress door within the existing door jamb at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Harrisville Fire Marshal in order to allow for this exit door now to swing in the direction of exit discharge.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a period of ninety (90) days in which to correct the swing of the cited existing door.

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)].