The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 18, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Thornton, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Timothy Lutz and Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioner Richard and Vice Chairperson Filippi.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 29, 2013 memo compiled by Durkee Brown Architects.  The above memo was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the June 18, 2013 hearing on this matter.  In accordance with the above memo, the Board hereby finds that this is an existing fourteen thousand square foot building, built in 1948 as a bank.  The Board further finds that the use of the building was changed to educational in 1990.  The Board finds that the Applicant is planning to provide this facility with minor alterations in order to house an all-girls middle school in the subject facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 29, 2013 memo as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
	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 understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.4.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the second floor as an educational use and to further maintain a single stair as the means of egress from the second floor.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs that the second floor shall be utilized for administration only, and that no students will be allowed on this level.  The Board further notes that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection in light of the Applicants agreement to provide this facility with both a new sprinkler and new fire alarm system.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of section 15.2.3.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain an approximate five-foot corridor width instead of the six-foot minimum corridor width in the subject facility.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection in light of the limited student occupancy of this facility.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.3.2.1(10)(e) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain an existing condition where the water and gas service locations enter into a closet within the basement enclosure of stair S-2.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide an approved one-hour door in the closet area and to further provide two-shaft wall construction under the stairs, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide a natural gas detector in this area.
	4.  During the June 18, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant was requesting approval of the proposed location for the handicapped chair lift.  The Board hereby approves the location of the proposed lift with the door designed to close automatically in the area.  The Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshals Office disagrees with this variance for the record.  Finally, the Board shall maintain this file open in the event either party has any further questions regarding this or other issues as the construction proceeds.

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 Applicants 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 Boards 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 Boards 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)].