The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 10, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Evans, Newbrook, Richard, Pearson, Coutu, Evans, Preiss, Wahlberg and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State fire marshal James Grenga of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard 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 December 3, 2002 variance request submitted to the Chairman as part of the Applicants application in this matter.  The December 3, 2002 request was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the December 10, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 3, 2002 submission as its initial findings of fact.  Any deficiency corrected by the Applicant shall be noted herein.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the building in question is an addition to an existing place of assembly (church) and that the new addition shall become the new worship center.  The Board further finds that the new construction shall be non-combustible, fully sprinklered and provides a two- (2) hour firewall separating the existing and the new building.  Finally, the Board finds that the existing building shall be fully sprinklered.
	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 Life Safety Code Section 8-2.5.5.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the proposed isle access between the rows of seating as outlined in the December 3, 2002 submission by the Applicant.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Life Safety Code Sections 5-10.1 and 5-10.4.2 to relieve the Applicant of the requirement of supplementary identification in his exit markings.  This variance is granted pursuant to the nature and character of the assembly occupancy and the additional fire protection that the Applicant has provided this facility.

	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)].