The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 9, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Preiss, Filippi, Richard, Jasparro, Dias, Pearson and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal and Fire Chief Gerald Bessette of the Barrington Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioners Jackson and Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an October 18, 2006 inspection report compiled by the Barrington Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Barrington Fire Marshals Office during the September 9, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 18, 2006 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
	Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term approved, as used herein, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 by providing this facility with an approved compliant municipal fire alarm system.
	2.  During the September 9, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had provided this facility with an approved municipally connected fire alarm system and further provided a new exit from the lower level of this facility.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant had cleaned the basement area and the basement now contains mostly non-combustible storage.  Accordingly, the Barrington Fire Marshal's office supports a variance from requiring automatic sprinklering of the basement storage area limited to the present occupancy of this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a limited variance from the provisions of section 37.3.5.1 in order to allow the Applicant not to provide automatic sprinkler coverage in the basement storage area of this facility contingent upon maintaining the current use of the basement storage area and the overall occupancy of this facility.  In the event the Applicant wishes to increase the fire load of the basement area or to change the nature and character of the occupancy of this facility, the owner must first notify the Barrington Fire Chief to determine whether the variance should be continued or the parties should return to the Board.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by providing the basement with a new means of egress at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Barrington Fire Marshal's office.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited ceiling height within the basement of this facility.
	5-8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 5, 6, 7 and 8 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Barrington 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 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)].