The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 15, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Richard and Commissioners Pearson, Burlingame, Coutu, and O’Connell were present.  Commissioner Newbrook was recused from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Emmott of the Union Fire District’s Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner O’Connell and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the July 15, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant was seeking a variance from the provisions of NFPA 101 (1997 edition) Section 10-2.2.3.1 addressing minimum corridor width.  The Board further finds that the School Department is converting a portion of its Administration Building to a special education facility.  The Board further finds that the Applicant currently plans to maintain approximately 20 students and 9 staff members in this facility.  The Board further finds that the Applicant plans to ultimately maintain 50 students and staff within this facility.  

The Board further finds that this is an 80 by 100 foot block building on slab with exit to grade.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has maintained a 6’ wide front entrance door and a 3’ wide rear egress door from this facility.  The Board further finds that the Applicant shall maintain small classrooms within this facility having approximately 6 to 8 students per classroom with limited future expansion.  The Board further finds that this facility has an approved municipal fire alarm system, emergency lights and exit signs, and 5’ wide corridors.  The requested variance is based on structural hardship in light of existing conditions.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility shall be corrected by the Applicant before occupancy.
	
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 NFPA 101 (1997 edition) Section 10-2.2.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing five foot wide corridors throughout this facility.  In granting this variance on the basis of structural hardship, it is the understanding of the Board that the Union Fire District’s Fire Marshal has no objection.

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)].