The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 18, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Jackson, Burlingame and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Gordon Walsh of the North Kingstown Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the September 18, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board had before it an August 17, 2012 plan review denial issued by the North Kingstown Fire Marshal along with an August 17, 2012 plan of action developed by the Applicants architectural firm.  The Board notes that the Applicants plan of action identified section 6.1.14.4, subsections 1, 2 and 3, along with table 6.1.14.4.1 as those provisions under which the Applicant sought variance in order to maintain the heavy timber construction of the ceilings of this facility with penetrations being rated at one (1) hour with double 3/8 rated separation of the bathroom area.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies within this facility will be addressed by the Applicant.
	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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 6.1.14.4, and its referenced standards outlined above, in order to allow the Applicant to provide this facility with the proposed separation as outlined in the August 17, 2012 correspondence from the Applicants architect.  

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)].