The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on June 13, 2000. The Applicant failed to attend this hearing and the matter was continued for hearing on July 25, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Fang, Coutu, Burlingame, Filippi, Evans and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Gordon Duquenoy of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office.  However, the Applicant failed to appear for a second time. A motion was thereupon made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Richard to dismiss this Application due to the failure of the Applicant to attend either of the two (2) scheduled hearings on this matter.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds that the Applicant was twice notified and twice failed to attend the scheduled hearings in this case.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

In accordance with the Board’s findings above, the Board hereby dismisses this case without prejudice. Specifically, this dismissal shall not preclude the Applicant from submitting a new application. 

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].