As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on Tuesday, May 9, 2017 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Filippi, Pearson, Walker, Sylvester, Thornton and Davison.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Kenneth Botelho and James Bellamy of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Timothy Wensus, Peter Costa, Kevin Harrop and Barbara Haynes.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.
TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under R.I.G.L. Chapter 23-28.3, entitled Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Peter Costa (authorized representative) of St. Mary Academy - Bay View, 3070 Pawtucket Avenue, RI dated December 21, 2016.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  160179 was opened on December 28, 2016.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on May 9, 2017 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Thornton to grant the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 7 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  160179 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  160179 dated December 21, 2016 and filed on December 28, 2016.
2.	East Providence Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated November 30, 2016.
3.	Reschedule Notice dated March 20, 2017.
4.	Email to Board from ADSFM Kenneth Botelho of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office dated February 27, 2017.
5.	Request for continuance from Barbara Haynes dated February 23, 2017.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the May 9, 2017 hearing as exhibits:

1.	Applicants Google Maps aerial site photograph.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The Decision below corresponds with the November 30, 2016 inspection report compiled by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshals Office during the May 9, 2017 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 30, 2016 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.
2.	The building is an existing 3-story with basement multiple/mixed use (assembly & educational) occupancy consisting of approximately seventy-four thousand three hundred thirty-two (74,332) square feet (living area) and originally built in 1947.
3.	The building is of Type III (200) construction and has a compliant fire alarm system and is provided with an approved automatic (partial protection) sprinkler system.
4.	The Board finds that there are extensive asbestos abatement issues involved in the proposed upgrade project and coupled with the limited time window available for construction, the proposed time table is reasonable and will not adversely affect the safety of the building occupants.
5.	There is no objection by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby incorporates by reference the Applicants plan of action as set forth in the Jensen Hughes document  1JJW00322 dated May 5, 2017 and more particularly, approves and adopts the Time Variance Executive Summary outlined in Table 1.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	This Decision constitutes a final order of the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review as set forth in R.I.G.L. section 42-35-12 and 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.  (See: Fire Safety Code, section 6-2-22).
2.	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: Fire Safety Code, section 6-2-23.)  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: Fire Safety Code, section 6-2-24).
3.	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.  (See:  Fire Safety Code, section 6-2-25).
4.	In accordance with R.I.G.L 42-35-12, 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.  (See: Fire Safety Code, section 6-2-18).  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].