The above-captioned case was originally heard by the Board on February 27, 2007 and a decision was issued on May 9, 2007 in file number 050190.  In the decision, the Board directed the Applicant to return with a comprehensive plan of action for the fire safety of this facility and further maintain this as an open file in order to allow the parties to present the plan of action to the Board.  The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on November 27, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, OConnell, Filippi, Walker, Jasparro, Preiss and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshals Wade Palazini and Arthur DaCosta of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Blackburn and conditioned upon the occupancy of the day care being maintained at a maximum of thirty (30) children.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in file number 050190 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that the Applicant has developed a plan of action which calls for five (5) specific variances from the code.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall provide this facility with a total coverage, complete fire alarm system and an approved sprinkler system covering the egress of this facility, designed and engineered in accordance with NFPA 13.  
	It is the further understanding and finding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct any remaining fire code deficiencies at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.
	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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the 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 30.1.2.2 in order to allow both means of egress from the apartments of this facility to discharge into the lower level of this facility and share the egress that is currently utilized by the non-residential occupancy of this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide approved domestic sprinkler coverage in both stairways, properly engineered in accordance with NFPA 13 standards, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal's office.  As a further condition of this relief, the Board directs that the Applicant shall not allow an increase of the day care occupancy beyond the current capacity of thirty (30) children.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 30.1.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the proposed separation between the occupancies of this facility.  Specifically, the Board shall allow the Applicant to maintain a double layer of  sheetrock in conjunction with the new fire alarm system and new fire doors separating the occupancies.  The Board further notes that there shall be sprinkler coverage in the egress of this facility.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 30.2.2.3.1 and 7.2.2 (table 7.2.2.2(1)(b)) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing stairs of this facility as modified by the egress sprinkler system.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 30.2.4.1 and 7.5.1.3.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of exits within this facility.  
	5.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 30.3.1.1.1 and section 8.6 in order to allow the Applicant to protect the cited vertical opening (stairway) with approved domestic sprinkler coverage as outlined above.  

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)].