The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 7, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Jackson, Jasparro and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Phillip Simmons of the Portsmouth Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner 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 a June 21, 2006 inspection report compiled by the Portsmouth Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Portsmouth Fire Marshals Office during the October 7, 2008 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 21, 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.  
	Specifically, the Board finds that this is a 5,000 square foot single story masonry block structure of ordinary construction.  The Board further finds that it was built in or around 1950 for use as an auto repair shop.  The Board further finds that there have been minor renovations over the years but none that would warrant a change of occupancy.  The Board further finds that the building is currently utilized as a transmission and general auto repair shop.
	The Board further finds that there is currently no fire alarm system within this facility.  The Board further finds that there are no emergency lights within the building.  The Board further finds that the exit signage is not visible from the work areas of the building.  The Board further finds that the exits in the workshop area are not remote.  The Board further finds that the parts washing tanks and stations have no protection or detection.  Finally, the Board finds that the walls and ceilings are open and unprotected and that the Portsmouth Fire Marshal's office has been unable to determine if there is a flame-spread rating.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has filed his variance application on or about June 28, 2005 and approximately one year later, on June 21, 2006, the Portsmouth Fire Marshal's office determined that no progress had been made as a result of his on-site inspection.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the applicant a time variance of 120 days from the October 7, 2008 hearing to either bring this facility into full compliance by correcting all of the deficiencies noted above and referenced on the October 21, 2006 inspection report, or to vacate this facility within the above time period.  In the event the Applicant chooses to vacate the facility within the 120 day period from October 7, 2008, the Board directs the Applicant not to re-occupy the facility until it is brought into full compliance with the fire code as outlined in the June 21, 2006 inspection.  The Board notes that over three (3) years have passed since the Applicant first filed for relief, and that over two (2) years have passed since the last inspection of this facility.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant has had sufficient time in order to address the cited deficiencies.

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)].