The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 10, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Pearson, Thornton, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Emmott of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioners Thornton and Richard to deny the Applicants requested relief.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this is a proposed two-story, 4600 sq. ft. business building with a single exit from the second floor.  The Board further finds that the building shall be sprinklered.  The Board further finds that the allowed travel distance to the outside for a single exit is one hundred (100) feet.  The Board further finds that the farthest point on the second floor to the outside of the building is approximately one hundred twelve (112) feet.  The Board finds that the proposed building was denied in the plan review phase by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  In light of the fact that this facility is proposed to be constructed and that the Applicant has not provided the Board with any structural, property line or other legitimate reason for not following the egress requirements of the code, the Board hereby denies the Applicants requested relief to maintain a single means of egress with a travel distance exceeding one hundred (100) feet.

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)].