The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 9, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Pearson, Filippi, Preiss, Wahlberg, and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Mark Vincent of the Washington Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Richard 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 May 24, 2002 inspection report compiled by the Washington Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Washington Fire Marshals Office during the July 9, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 24, 2002 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 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 from the provisions of Life Safety Code Section 5-2.1.3 an d5-1.6.2 as these provisions relate to the two (2) egress doors leading out of the dance studio of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that these doors are utilized for exit only and that while the exit capacity is approximately 482 people, only 282 people comprise the actual occupancy of this facility.  Finally, the Washington Fire Marshal advised the Board that the local building official did not consider the step down to be in violation of the building code.
2.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by properly ramping the change of level in the means of egress at the door lading from the interior corridor door into the main studio of this facility.
3.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by providing the ramp to accommodate the change of the level of egress at the exit access door leading out of the second dance studio into the corridor of this facility.

	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)].