As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on November 3, 2015 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook, Vice-Chairman Blackburn and Commissioners Booth, Filippi, Jackson, Pearson, Thornton and Walker.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under R.I.G.L. Chapter 23-28.3, entitled the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Don Riley (authorized representative) of U-Haul of North Smithfield, 408 Eddie Dowling Highway, North Smithfield, RI dated September 14, 2015.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  150101 opened on September 22, 2015.
4.	The matter was initially before the Board on October 20, 2015 at which time the hearing was reassigned until November 3, 2015 for the Applicant to return with a plan of action.
5.	On November 3, 2015 ADSFM Brian Gartland of the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office advised the Board that the Applicants revised plans were now compliant with the Code and that the request for relief be dismissed.
6.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on November 3, 2015 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
7.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to close the file.  The motion passed on an 8 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  150101 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  150101 dated September 14, 2015 and filed on September 22, 2015.
2.	North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report dated January 28, 2015.
3.	Letter of authorization for Don Riley from Carlos Vizcarra of Amerco Real Estate Company dated September 18, 2015.
4.	Reschedule Notice dated October 23, 2015.
5.	Email from ADSFM Brian Gartland of the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office to the Board dated November 3, 2015.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the November 3, 2015 hearing as exhibits:

1.	None.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The Decision below corresponds with the January 28, 2015 plan review report compiled by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the October 20, 2015 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the January 28, 2015 plan review 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.
2.	The building is an existing 1-story building being converted into a new storage occupancy.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

The AHJ has advised the Board that the Applicants revised plans are now fully compliant with the Code.  Accordingly, the Board directs this file to be closed.

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 this Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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 6-2-22).
2.	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 6-2-23.)  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 6-2-24).
3.	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 6-2-25).
4.	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.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18).  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].