The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 21, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss Newbrook, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal and Chief Gerald  Bessette of the Barrington Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Vice Chairman Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board hereby incorporates its original findings of facts in decision number 040124 as its initial findings in this case.  Further, the Board finds that on or about January 7, 2005, the Barrington Fire Marshal determined that the basement Pro Shop would require automatic fire and sprinkler protection.  This finding was based upon the fact that the adjoining assembly space would trigger an automatic fire sprinkler requirement throughout the building.
	
The Board further finds that approved separation between the assembly occupancy and the golf bag storage area in the basement of the Pro shop would potentially eliminate the need for sprinkler coverage.  The Board further finds that the applicant is willing to provide an approved two (2) hour separation between the occupancies and to further have that separation confirmed by a Rhode Island licensed architect or engineer to the satisfaction of the Barrington Fire Marshal’s Office.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to provide an approved two (2) hour separation between the golf bag storage area located in the basement of the Pro Shop of this facility and the assembly occupancy.  The above separation shall correct door number four (4) and an adjoining window facing the assembly occupancy.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the Barrington Fire Marshal’s Office with a letter from a registered architect or engineer in Rhode Island indicating that the proposed assembly is a two (2) hour or equivalent.

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)].