The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 11, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Pearson, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Craig Beausoleil and Brian Gartland of the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook 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 April 22, 2004 inspection report compiled by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the July 11, 2006 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 22, 2004 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, is understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in which to provide this facility with approved emergency lighting and exit signage installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to provide this complex with approved fire alarm coverage, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office.  The Board notes that the unique configuration and the substantial limited occupancy of the complex, including the riding arena which has no heat, no stands or occupancy other than the riders who utilize this in the winter time, may allow for a limitation on the location, number and type of devices required for full fire alarm coverage.  Accordingly, all of the devices throughout this complex shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office and be allowed to tie into the alarm system in building 1.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding and direction of the Board that there shall be no hay or shavings stored within the cited buildings of the complex and that the stalls utilized for tenant storage shall be equipped with any safeguards deemed necessary by the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by properly testing and maintaining all of the fire extinguishers within this complex.
	4.  During the July 11, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the apartment house has at least a one-hour separation between it and the other occupancies.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant has provided approved carbon monoxide and smoke detection throughout the apartment occupancy.  The Board directs the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office to determine whether there is approved separation in the attic of the apartment complex and if there is not, the Board directs the Applicant to either provide approved separation or provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system, within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by providing this facility with a key access box.

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)].