The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 2l, 2001 at l:30 p.m.  At that time a subcommittee of the Board reviewed the Applicant’s request.  The Subcommittee’s Recommendation was subsequently approved during an August 28, 2001 full hearing of the Board.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Evans, Filippi, Wahlberg, O’Connell and Burlingame were present.   A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Evans to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

During the August 2l, 2001 hearing, the Board was advised that the Applicant had created a new school addition.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant needed time in order to complete the fire rating of a small connecting corridor.  The Board was further advised that this facility abutted a wetland and accordingly it would be difficult for the Applicant to secure a DEM permit in order to construct a means of egress from an emergency window.  The East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office advised the Board that the classroom in question had three (3) other means of egress and that the Applicant is meeting the intent of the Life Safety Code by providing this additional egress.

	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.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to properly fire rate a small corridor connecting the new addition of this facility on or before October 30, 2001, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal.

2.	The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant not to utilize an approved emergency window from the lower classroom of this facility and not to establish egress path through the adjoining wetlands.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant maintains three (3) other means of egress from this facility and that the intent of the code had been met.

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.

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 Board’s Decision, shall void all variances granted under the above-cited use or occupancy.  If such changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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 Board’s Decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by requesting to be reheard before a quorum of the full Board.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)]