The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 27, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Coutu, Newbrook, 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 Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Preiss 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 this is an existing branch library with a proposed addition.  The number of occupants in the existing portion of this facility has been calculated at one hundred and forty-six (146).  The number of occupants in the addition to this facility has been calculated at two hundred and fifty-five (255).  Accordingly, in accordance with the applicants calculations, this facility shall maintain a total occupancy of four hundred and one (401).  The Applicant has appeared before the Board requesting relief from the provisions of Section 8-3.5.1, which would require the sprinkling of this facility, and relief from the provisions of Section 5-2.1.4, which requires exit remoteness.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies within this facility shall 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.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to sprinkle the entire building in accordance with the provisions of Section 8-3.5.1.  While the Applicant provided the Board with an excellent presentation outlining the reasons for the requested relief, it is the collective opinion of the Board that public safety would be better served by providing this facility with complete sprinkler protection.
2.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 5-5.1.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the proposed remoteness of the exits leading from this facility.  This variance is granted pursuant to the Boards understanding that this facility shall be fully sprinklered and further protected by a newly upgraded municipally connected fire alarm system.

	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)].