The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, O'Connell, Richard, Pearson, Burlingame and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal and Chief Inspector William Howe the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioner Richard abstaining.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the January 30, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this proposed horse stable shall be a new building erected on its own slab.  The Board had previously granted a variance from the stable storage requirements on an initially proposed two-story building.  Accordingly, the Board relies its initial findings of fact in file No. 200009. However, due to financial constraints, the Applicant was unable to develop the initial proposal. The current proposal would maintain one level of occupancy with the same number horses.  There will be no overnight occupancy in the newly proposed stable area.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other deficiencies, not addressed by this variance, shall be corrected.
	
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 sections 23-28. 31-1 and section 7 of the Rhode Island Fire Prevention Code, in order to relieve the Applicant from compliance with the storage requirements for stables and to allow the Applicant not to provide a sheetrock finish on the walls of this proposed stable.

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)].

This decision was mailed on 2-08-01.