The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Emmott of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
Based on the information submitted and the testimony taken, the Board finds that this building was constructed in the 1930s.  The Board further finds that this facility has three (3) floors and that the floors continue to be occupied.  The Board further finds that the building has an NFPA full coverage sprinkler system.  The Board further finds that this facility has an approved Class A municipally connected fire alarm system.  However, due to the age of the building, the Union Fire District Fire Marshal’s office has determined that certain structural deficiencies exist.  Specifically, the Board finds that the ceiling height of the basement of this facility is 82 ˝” with sprinkler pipe protrusions at between 75” and 76”.  The Applicant has sought a variance from the ceiling height provisions of the code based on structural hardship.  
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing 82 ˝” ceiling height of the basement of this facility with protrusions from the sprinkler piping at between 75” and 76”.  This variance is based on structural hardship in the absence of an objection by the Union Fire District Fire Marshal’s office.

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)].