The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 25, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Richard, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Waterman of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a July 20, 2010 inspection report compiled by the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the January 25, 2011 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 20, 2010 inspection report 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 State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  During the January 25, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant wishes to provide an approved two-hour separation within this facility in order to limit the effective occupancy on either side of the separation and thereby not be required to provide this facility with sprinkler coverage.  The Board was further advised that the two-hour separation would maintain ninety-minute doors and extend to the underside of the roof deck, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board was advised that the Applicant would maintain a municipally connected fire alarm system within this facility.  

In light of the above, and in the absence of an objection from the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.3.5.1 and 13.3.5.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to separate the assembly occupancy as proposed, and thereby not be required to provide this facility with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to develop and submit a plan of action for the installation of a municipally connected fire alarm system to the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The Board grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in order to implement the plan and install the municipally connected fire alarm system, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office, within this facility.  Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office to extend either or both of the above timelines for good faith efforts being demonstrated by the Applicant.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by properly securing the cited outlets to the wall.
	4.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined in item 2 above in order to correct deficiency 4 with regard to the rating of the ceiling tiles, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
	5-7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 5, 6 and 7 of the July 20, 2010 inspection report.
	8.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined in item 2 above in order to correct deficiency 8 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
	9.  During the January 25, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Applicant advised the Board that he had corrected deficiency 9 by repairing the cited emergency lights.
	10.  During the January 25, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office advised the Board that deficiency 10.1 and deficiency 10.3 had been corrected.  The Board was subsequently advised by the Applicant that deficiency 10.2 had also been corrected.
	11.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 11 by providing the cited junction boxes with the required covers.
	12.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined in item 2 above in order to correct deficiency 12 by providing the cited items with the required flame resistance rating, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Smithfield Fire Marshals 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)].