The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 9, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Filippi, Burlingame, Coutu, Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Stephen Nunes of the Quinnville Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Coutu 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 February 10, 2004 plan review report compiled by the Quinville Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Quinville Fire Marshal’s Office during the March 9, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 10, 2004 plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein.

Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term “approved”, as used herein, is understood to mean “in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal)”.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. During the March 9, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the existing two (2) means of egress from the lower level of this facility do not meet the guidelines of NFPA for remoteness.  Specifically, there is approximately thirty six feet between the means of egress on the lower and half of the diagonal would require forty two feet and nine inches.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant would never have more than thirty (30) people in the downstairs area and that forty four (44) people are allowed in this area.  Finally, the Board was advised that the Fire Marshal had no objection on the basis of structural hardship and the limited occupancy of this level.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 7.5.1.3.5 and 7.5.1.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing thirty six (36) feet remoteness between the lower level egress doors of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies have been corrected to the satisfaction of the Quinnville Fire Marshal’s Office.

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)].