The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 22, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Pearson, Walker, Thornton, Sylvester and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Chris Heiner of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Booth 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 an October 8, 2013 plan review report compiled by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the October 22, 2013 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 8, 2013 plan review 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.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 38.2.4.3(2) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the benefit of section 38.2.4.3 and still maintain the existing travel distance from the proposed twelfth office within this complex.  In granting this relief based upon limited occupancy and other safeguards, it is the understanding of the Board that the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	2.  During the October 22, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant maintains a small low-speed wind tunnel that is more than likely incidental to the existing business occupancy.  The Board was further advised that the building is fully sprinklered and alarmed and that the Applicant would provide an approved shut-down on the wind tunnel activated by a shunt trip or other approved method, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the business occupancy not to be separated from the area in which the wind tunnel is located.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office has no objection.

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)].