The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 22, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, O’Connell, Coutu, Richard, Burlingame and Newbrook were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the April 22, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the subject building shall be occupied as a new day care.  The Board was further advised that this is a fully sprinklered facility.  Upon review of the facility by the State Fire Marshal’s office, the Applicant was advised that the NFPA 1997 edition of the Life Safety Code requires the corridor system to be one-hour rated.  However, the Fire Marshal’s office further informed the Applicant that the 2000 edition of the NFPA Life Safety Code would allow the Applicant to maintain the current rating of the corridor because the building is fully sprinklered.  As a result, the Applicant has requested a variance to utilize the 2000 edition of NFPA 101 for the review of this facility. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to have this building reviewed under the 2000 edition of NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code).  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshal’s office does not have an 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)].