The above-captioned case was previously heard by the Board on July 15, 2003 and a written decision was issued on September 11, 2003.  The Applicant has now returned to request reinstatement of the prior variance.  The above captioned case was thereupon rescheduled for hearing on April 25, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Preiss, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Vincent Quinterno of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact as outlined in file 030236 as its findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board notes that the Applicant is requesting reinstatement of the prior variance granted for ceiling height in the original case.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby reaffirms the original ceiling height variance granted in file 030236.  Specifically, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited two (2) protrusions from the ceiling within the two (2) enclosed staircases on the Stanwood Street side of this facility.  In granting this variance the Board notes that the cited protrusions create a seventy (70) inch ceiling height in some locations.  It is the further understanding of the Board that the protrusions are created by a beam which imposes a structural hardship upon the Applicant and that the State Fire Marshal's office has no objection to this variance in light of the existing condition and the structural hardship.

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)].