The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Sylvester, Jackson, Jasparro, Pearson and Dias were present.  Commissioner Burlingame recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the April 3, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the top of the ramp connecting the new facility to the existing facility within this complex has a head room of seven feet and one quarter inches (71/4) and that the sensory room has a common path of travel of one hundred five (105) feet.  The Board was further advised and finds that the subject connecting corridor was constructed in part utilizing an existing tunnel which restricted the height to the seven feet one quarter inch.  The Board further finds that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection on the basis of structural hardship and existing condition.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a structural variance in order to maintain the existing tunnel with a finished height of seven feet one quarter inch (71/4).  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection based upon structural hardship and existing conditions.

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)].