The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 17, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Wahlberg, Fang, Evans, Filippi and Coutu were present.  Commissioner Newbrook recused himself and did not participate in this hearing.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Kevin Murphy of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Fang to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the October 17, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought a variance in order to conduct inspection of this facility under the provisions of Life Safety Code 101, 2000 Edition. Specifically, this edition allows for ”0” fire resistance rating in corridors where a building is fully sprinkled.  The Board notes that the 2000 Edition of NFPA 101 is currently being considered for adoption in Rhode Island. Finally, is the understanding of the Board that this building is in full compliance with the above national standard.	
	
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 in order to allow the Applicant to have the Day Care occupancy of his building reviewed under the latest edition of the national fire protection standards.  Specifically, the Day Care occupancy of this building shall be reviewed under NFPA 101, 2000 edition.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the above standard will most likely be adopted on a statewide basis in the near future.

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)].