The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 11, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Coutu, Burlingame and Pearson were present.  The Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office was able to attend the hearing however,  Commissioner Burlingame relayed a message from that office to the Board, that they had no objection to the requested relief.  A motion was thereupon made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 11, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the area in the lower level of the Peace Dale office that the Applicant was designing lacks proper headroom.  Specifically, there are some projections that create a headroom of 75 inches where 80 inches is required.  The Board was further advised and finds that part of the lower level is occupied and separated by a fire wall and that there is classroom space on the lower level for the arts and crafts department.  Finally, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant shall work with the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office in correcting as many of the projections as possible during the renovation of this facility and prior to occupancy.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1. In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5.1.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing headroom in the basement of this facility after his best efforts were made to correct this deficiency at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District.  Accordingly, the Applicant shall correct those areas, deemed correctable by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office, prior to occupancy of this facility.  Any residual areas not deemed to be corrected by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office shall be subject of the above variance.

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)].