The above captioned case was scheduled fro hearing on August 27, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Coutu, Newbrook, Coutu, Evans, Preiss, and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Edward Donahue of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioners Burlingame and Newbrook.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the August 27, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant was providing a small addition to an existing branch library.  The addition would contain a childrens activity room.  The Board was further advised that in light of newly designed stairway, the Applicant would not comply with the required exit remoteness.  Finally, the Board finds that this facility is fully protected by a full fire alarm system and is constructed of 3B non-combustible construction.  There is an approximate total occupancy of two hundred and eighty (280) people within this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility will be corrected by the Applicant.
	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.	In light of the Applicants exhaustive presentation on the fire safety of this complex, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 5-5.1.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of the proposed exit system of this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board finds that the existing remoteness does not have an appreciable impact upon public safety.

	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)].