The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 22, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Evans, O’Connell, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson, Filippi and Newbrook were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley of the East Greenwich Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded, for discussion, by Vice Chairman Coutu.  A motion thereupon passed over the opposition votes of Vice Chairman Coutu, Commissioner Burlingame and Commissioner Preiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a March 3, 2005 plan review report compiled by the East Greenwich Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshal’s Office during the March 22, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 3, 2005 plan review 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 this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal”.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board finds that deficiency #1 is informational in nature and not a violation of the State Fire Code.
	
2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has agreed to comply with deficiency #2 by posting the proper occupant load of this facility.
	
3.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiency #3 is informational in nature, stating the entire occupancy of this facility.
	
4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #4 by providing approved panic hardware on the cited doors.
	
5.  During the March 22, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the space on the second level of this facility shall be used as office space for the minister and a changing room for the choir.  The Board further finds that while this space does not automatically qualify as a mezzanine under the provisions of the code, it has a very limited use.  The Board further finds that enclosing the stair at the bottom would possibly impede egress traffic from the main level of this facility.  The Board further finds that the Applicant shall provide an approved smoke barrier door at the second level of this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 12.2.2.3, 2.3.1 and 8.6.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing proposed stairwell to the second floor of this facility.
	
6.  See item #5 above.
	
7.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 12.2.4 and 7.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of exits from this facility with the sprinkler head coverage previously directed by the RI Building Board.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the occupant load of this facility is approximately six people and this is ancillary to the use of the space below and that the space in question is unoccupied except during services.
	
8. - 15.  It is the understanding of the Board that that the Applicant shall correct deficiencies 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshal’s office.
 
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)].