The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Pearson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Brian Gartland of the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 30, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the subject building, building 7, is a combination stable area (38-40 stalls), a riding area, an office area and a viewing area.  The Board was further advised that there is an unoccupied residential unit within this barn.  The Board was further advised and finds that the building currently does not have a sprinkler system, a fire alarm system or emergency lighting.  The Board was further advised and finds that the subject of fire protection within barns has been delegated to a legislative study commission that has yet to meet.  The Board was further advised that the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office may wish to re-inspect this facility due to the fact that the last inspection was approximately 2 years old.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants the parties a time variance of 120 days in order to provide for the re-inspection of the facility and to address the deficiencies in accordance with any new guidelines established for barns by either the legislature or the Fire Board.

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)].