The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 17, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Jonathan DePault of the Woonsocket Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the August 17, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that this facility is currently vacant.  The Board further finds that this facility was inspected by the North Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office, on June 2, 2004, as a mercantile occupancy.  However, the Board finds that the building was only actually zoned as residential and therefore the Applicant would not be able to operate a mercantile occupancy until such zoning is changed.  The Applicant has advised the Board that this facility shall either remain vacant or shall house a residential occupancy.  The Applicant has further agreed that if the zoning is changed and business or mercantile occupancy is allowed that he would comply with the code, as outlined by the North Smithfield Marshal’s Office, prior to the new occupancy.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. In light of the fact that this building cannot be legally occupied as a mercantile occupancy at this time, and the fact that this building is currently vacant, the Board shall not require the Applicant to comply with the June 2, 2004 inspection report covering this facility at this time.  However, the Board directs the Applicant to correct all of the outlined deficiencies in the above inspection report prior to the re-occupancy of this building for any use other than a one (1), two (2) and three (3) family residence.  Finally, the Board notes that the Applicant should consult with the North Smithfield Fire Marshal’s Office prior to any residential re-occupancy of this building and to further to comply with the guidelines covering the residential re-occupancy.

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)].