The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 4, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, a subcommittee of the Board consisting of members Wahlberg, Preiss, Filippi and Coutu were present.  The Warwick Fire Marshal’s office did not attend this hearing however, when subsequently contacted, they advised the Board that they had no objection to the variances granted.  The subcommittee’s recommendations were reviewed by the Board on February 11, 2003.  At that time a motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the February 4, 2003 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that this project involved an addition to three school buildings.  Specifically, an elevator was to be installed in the addition to accommodate a three-story existing building and provide handicapped access.  The project in effect created a courtyard.  However, the construction of the new addition affected the direct exterior access from the stairway servicing the second floor of the existing building.  Specifically, it eliminated the direct access requirement of the Fire Safety Code.  The Board was further advised that a variance had been granted by the City of Warwick Building Board to allow for this situation to exist with approved sprinkler coverage.  The Board was further advised that this facility is fully protected by an addressable fire alarm system.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 23-28.12-11, 5-2.6, 10-2.11.1 and 11-2.11.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing egress path including a window at the office area.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the applicant to segregate this area with an approved two (2) hour rated door at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Department and to further provide additional sprinkler coverage in the area of the office window at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Warwick Fire Marshal’s office.

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)].

This decision was mailed on 5-15-03.