The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 14, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Coutu, Pearson and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Barrosso of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame 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 an August 23, 2004 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal’s Office during the December 14, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the August 23, 2004 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein.

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 the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal)”.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.5.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing fire rated door located in the southeast corner of the building.  Specifically, the Board hereby reaffirms the original variance granted in its July 10, 2003, decision in its file number 030201 in which the Board allowed the Applicant to maintain the existing rated door height of six (6) feet six (6) inches within the existing masonry doorjambs of this facility.  The reaffirmation of this variance is again based on 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 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)].