The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 18, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Walker, Filippi, Richard, Jasparro, Dias and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bruce Rice and Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office along with Deputy State Fire Marshal Eric Kiernan of the State Fire Marshal's Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 18, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's Office that the subject facility is currently vacant and all of the utilities have been shut off.  The Board was further advised by the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's Office that arrangements had been made to bring the facility into full compliance prior to re-occupancy.  The owner did not attend this hearing.  However, the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's Office indicated that they had no objection to the relayed plan of action.
	The Board notes that the deficiencies for this occupancy, as a place of assembly, are outlined on a December 12, 2007 inspection report.  The Board further notes that if the Applicant changes occupancy, a plan review covering the new occupancy would have to be conducted by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals' Office.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 12, 2007 inspection report as its initial findings of fact with the understanding that should this facility change occupancy, additional code requirements may be mandated.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to bring this facility into full compliance prior to re-occupancy at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office.  The Board notes that the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office has no objection to this plan of action and that the building shall remain empty and the utilities shall be shut off during the period it is vacated.

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)].