The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 7, 2014 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Pearson, Walker, Thornton, Jackson, Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame and Sylvester were present.  In addition, Department of Administration Deputy Legal Counsel Peter Dennehy was present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Chris Mahoney of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioner Blackburn abstaining from the vote.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	A Mr. John Carter Richardson, owner of Unit  1 of the above facility, appeared before the Board in place of the Applicant, who was unavailable.  Mr. Richardson testified that there are four (4) units in the above facility, all individually owned.  He further testified that there is a property management firm but no condominium association and accordingly, no association officers.  He further testified that the remaining three (3) owners were unavailable for the hearing and that he is not authorized to act on their behalf.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.  The Board hereby directs that the matter be reassigned to February 4, 2014 at which time Mr. Richardson (or any other person) appearing on behalf of all of the owners produce a letter of authorization the Applicant to proceed with the appeal.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-1-11).

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)].