The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 13, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro and Richard were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Christopher Heiner of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 13, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was presented with and reviewed a December 17, 2008 action plan memorandum compiled by the Applicant and submitted to the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office.  The Board finds that the above action plan was provided primarily in order to resolve the head room issue and the rating of door 202 within this facility.  The fire marshal appeared and approved the action plan.  Accordingly, the Board was asked to also approve this action plan.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby approves the action plan to resolve the headroom issues and rating of door 202 in this facility as outlined in the action plan memorandum submitted by the Applicant and dated December 17, 2008.  Accordingly, the above door shall be considered in compliance with the code as long as it is in compliance with the December 17, 2008 action plan at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union District 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 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)].