The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 15, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Filippi, Evans, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe and Deputy State Fire Marshals Christine Kent and Dennis McGarty of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  An initial motion, granting the Applicant a time variance to develop an approved plan of action, was made by Vice Chairman Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook.  This motion was unanimous.  A second motion, approving the installation of certain draperies and re-upholstered chairs in the State Room, was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Evans.  This motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board hereby adopts the original building description outlined in the Fire Marshal’s October 12, 2004 inspection report in file #29-2400.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal’s Office during the March 15, 2005 hearing on this matter.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has created a group of experts in order to develop a plan of action for the fire safety of this facility.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has awarded a contract for the installation of a fire alarm system within this facility along with a central HVAC system.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has met with representatives of the Historical Commission and the State Fire Marshal’s office in developing its plan of action.  The Board further finds that the Applicant needs additional time in order to put together a comprehensive plan of action for fire safety in this project.
	
With regard to the fabric in the State Room, the Board finds that the original upholstery and curtains in the State Room are in disrepair.  The Board further finds that the Applicant wishes to replace these items with comparable materials in order to maintain the historical integrity of this room.  The Board finds that the originally proposed replacement material costs $1,200.00 per yard.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has been able to secure material at approximately twenty five percent of the above price.  The Board further finds that the material will be backed by flame-proof materials.  The Board further finds that attempts to treat this material were not successful.  The Board further finds that the material is proposed to be placed in a room with non-combustible walls and that there shall be no candles or open flames in the State Room.  The Board further finds that the State Room shall be protected by a beam detector and that it shall be further protected by twenty-four hour security in the building.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance until June 14, 2005 in order to develop a preliminary plan of action for this facility.  In the event the Applicant needs additional time, the Applicant shall return to the Board on June 14, 2005 and explain the need for additional time to the Board.
	
2.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to replace the draperies and re-upholster the furniture with the proposed substitute fabric.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to back this material with approved flame-proof material and to eliminate candles or other open flames in the State Room.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the State Room is a non-combustible room.  Finally, this approval is contingent upon any additional safeguards deemed necessary by the State Fire Marshal’s office after it tests this material to determine its flammability. 

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)].