The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on August 23, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Hawthorne of the Cranston Fire Marshals Office.  After review of the position of the parties, the Applicant was unable to secure a quorum to support his variance request.  Accordingly, the request is denied.  In a follow-up motion by Commissioner Preiss, seconded by Commissioner Newbrook, the Board directed the parties to contact NFPA to secure a formal interpretation or an opinion as to the disputed code provisions.  This motion passed.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	As noted in file number 030275, the Board finds that the subject facility has been constructed as a 72 x 200 horse stable with an approximate area of 14,400 square feet.  The building is constructed of Type II (000) construction with room for approximately thirty six horse stalls.  The Board further finds that the site plan indicates that the building will be situated approximately 690 feet off the road and will have an eighteen foot wide fire lane around it.  The Board finds that the building was originally reviewed under the provisions of NFPA 150 by the Cranston Fire Marshals office.
	On August 5, 2003, the Applicant initially appeared before the Board to contest the Cranston Fire Marshals review of this facility under the provisions of NFPA 150.  At that time the Applicant specifically advised the Board that only his family would be using the facility and there would be no boarding of other horses.  The Applicant further advised the Board that the facility would not be open to the public.  In light of the above, a motion was made to allow the Applicant to comply with the provisions of Chapter 29 of NFPA 101 instead of the provisions of NFPA 150.  The Applicant has now returned to the Board requesting that the 36 stall barn be used to house the horses of its principals, and for boarding horses of non-family members for a fee.  In light of the above, the Board finds that the proposal would change the occupancy of this facility from a residential occupancy to a commercial occupancy.  The Board finds that the Cranston Fire Marshals office has consulted, informally, with all three of the NFPA engineers who have informally advised him that the facility would now fall into the new business or new mercantile category as a result of the public boarding of horses.  Finally, in light of the new classification of occupancy, the Board finds that this facility would require a sprinkler system.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board notes that the Applicant was unable to secure the necessary votes in order to receive a variance from the sprinkler provisions required for this facility.  While the Cranston Fire Marshals office has secured informal determinations from the NFPA engineers, the Board believes that if the parties wish to pursue this matter, they should seek a formal interpretation of the relevant code sections by NFPA engineers.  Upon securing this formal information, either party would be free to return to the Board and make such a presentation.  Finally, the Board notes that as long as the Applicant demonstrates good faith attempts at compliance with the relevant provisions of the code, the Cranston Fire Marshals office has the authority to extend all deadlines for compliance.

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)].