The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 21, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Filippi, Newbrook, Richard, Coutu, Preiss, Wahlberg, and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal John Mackay of the Westerly Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds this facility to be a single story brick structure built approximately fifty (50) years ago.  The Board further finds that the facility is comprised of two (2) street level retail stories each totaling 2,400 plus or minus square feet together with non-occupied basement levels.  The property is fronted on High Street and is abutted on both sides by commercial property owned by others and the rear wall of said property abuts directly onto the Pawtucket River offering no means of rear egress.  The Applicant has come before the Board requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.17-2(b).  The stated reason for the request is structural hardship.
	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 defined in Section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28-17-2(b) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing egress from the basement as modified herein.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide approved sheet rock enclosures and rated doors at the top of the basement stairs of each facility.  The Board further directs the Applicant to maintain the basement areas as completely unoccupied areas.  Finally, the Board directs the Applicant to provide these facilities with approved emergency lights, exit signs and a fire alarm system within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this Decision.
	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.  
	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.   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.  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.  
	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)].