The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 22, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Preiss and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Jasparro, Jackson, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Waterman of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 22, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from the provisions of section 7.1.5 in order to allow the finished ceiling of this facility to maintain less than ninety (90) inches of clearance.  The Board further finds that on August of 2006 a car drove into the building causing substantial damage on the first floor.  The Board further finds that while the building was being repaired, a water meter exploded causing damage on the lower level.  The Board further finds that the lower level damage caused construction to be more than fifty percent of the building and therefore that Applicant was brought into new requirements under the code.  The Board finds that the finished ceiling height in the lower level of the building is approximately 83  inches and seventy percent of the area and approximately 80  inches in the remaining thirty percent of the lower level.  The Board finds that the Smithfield Fire Marshal's office had no objection based on structural hardship.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the above cited head room within this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that all of the remaining requirements of the fire code are met by this facility.

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)].