The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 11, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Booth, Thornton, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Brian Gartland of the North Smithfield 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
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a July 19, 2012 inspection report compiled by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the June 11, 2013 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 19, 2012 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 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.  During the June 11, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the subject facility was a low hazard storage occupancy; specifically a non-residential farm building (horse stable) that is not utilized as a place of assembly and not open to the general public.  The Board further notes that at the time of this inspection, the provisions of section 42.3.4.1.1 would have required a local fire alarm system.  However, the Board notes that with the modifications to section 42.3.4.1.1, a fire alarm system would not be required in this particular building, assuming the Applicant maintains the non-residential nature of this facility and complies with the remaining standards for the exception.  Accordingly, the Board finds that deficiency 1 is moot and not a mandate for this facility.
	2.  In the absence of a fire alarm requirement, the Board notes that deficiency 2 would also be moot and that a key access box would not be required for this facility.
	3.  During the June 11, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Applicant advised the Board that he had an emergency generator which provided emergency lighting throughout this facility.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant has complied with the requirements for emergency illumination.
	4.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 4 by installing approved exit signs at the primary exit doors of this facility at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  
	5.  During the June 11, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Applicant advised the Board that the small tack room of this facility may be utilized by people who are assigned to keep the horses calm.  Accordingly, the Board directs the Applicant to provide this area with an approved smoke alarm installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North 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)].