The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 3, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Richard, Jasparro, Dias, Filippi, Pearson and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Raymond Gomes of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook to clarify the current occupancy of this facility.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Walker.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a December 3, 2007 report compiled by the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshals Office during the August 3, 2010 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 3, 2007 report as its initial findings of fact with the exception of item 1 which shall be clarified herein.  Any modification of the Boards 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 or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  During the August 3, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that this facility had originally been inspected as an existing business with two (2) non-separated residential units.  Accordingly, the entire complex fell under the occupancy classification of existing business for purposes of fire code review.  The Board was subsequently advised that the Applicant is now in the process of eliminating the two (2) residential units and that these units shall be maintained as business in the future.
	The Newport Fire Marshal's office has come before the Board seeking clarification as to whether the entire building will maintain its status as an existing business building from the previous inspections in light of the fact that the residential units did not give rise to a separate and distinct occupancy classification under the State Fire Code.  The Newport Fire Marshal's office further advised that the Applicant had upgraded the fire alarm system within this facility to a municipally connected system and that therefore his office had no objection to the maintenance of existing business occupancy for this facility.
	In light of the above, and upon review of the entire record of this case, it was determined by the Board that the historical classification of this facility as being entirely existing business would not be modified by the elimination of the residential units and the maintenance of business operations therein.  In light of the above, the Board finds that deficiency 1 on the December 3, 2007 report is moot and not a violation of the State Fire Code.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport Fire Marshal's office.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport 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 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.  (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 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.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).
	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)].