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 Marshals Robert Emmott and Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject facility is a two-story wood frame structure, Type V construction, with a basement, built in approximately 1751.  The Board further finds that it was subsequently converted to a business occupancy and that the structure consists of approximately 1600 square feet.  The Board finds that the building was last utilized as a business with offices on the first and second floor and that the basement is utilized for utilities and storage.  The Applicant has advised the Board that he will be the sole occupant of the building and that his business will be on the first floor and that his living quarters will be on the second floor.  

The Applicant further advised the Board that the entire building including the upstairs apartment is fully fire alarmed and that the Applicant shall be installing 110 volt interconnected smoke and carbon monoxide alarms in the living area.  The Applicant has further advised the Board that there is a rear exit in the second floor residence that leads to a section of roof and from there onto an existing fire escape ladder.  The Applicant as come before the Board specifically seeking a variance from Fire Code section 24.1.2.2 for this facility.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  Upon review of the Applicants request, the Board notes that the provisions of section 24.1.2.2 would not apply to the subject facility in that it would be classified as a business building.  Accordingly, in light of the Applicants agreement to provide approved interconnected smoke and CO detection in addition to the existing fire alarm system within this facility, the Board finds that the above residential provisions would not apply to this facility and that they would be moot.

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)].