The above-captioned case was scheduled for an onsite review by a Subcommittee of the Board on December 20, 2010 at 10:00 A.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioner Dias were present.  Also present were the Chief and two Fire Marshals from the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  One of the Marshals, Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Bruce Rice, reviewed his September 11, 2008 inspection report with the parties at that time.  

The Subcommittee recommendations, as outlined herein, were then presented to the Board during its December 21, 2010 meeting.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Jasparro, Richard, Dias, Filippi and Walker were present.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve the Subcommittee recommendations and grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  Accordingly, the Subcommittee recommendations now have the status of a full Board Decision. 

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a September 11, 2008 inspection report complied by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Subcommittee, the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the December 20, 2010 on-site review of this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 11, 2008 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  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, shall be 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 on-site review of this matter, the Subcommittee was advised that this historic church has consistently maintained occupancy of less than fifty (50) people.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance to allow this historic church to be considered a Business Use as opposed to an Assembly Use and to therefore allow the existing egress arrangement for this limited use.  As a further condition of this relief, the Board notes that the Applicants representative has agreed to remove the extension cords observed in this facility and to also use battery operated candles rather than open flame candles.  Further, the Board directs the Applicant to block off approximately twenty-three (23) pew seats, during normal operations, to prevent overcrowding.  Finally, in the event the Applicant wishes to temporarily expand its occupancy for a special occasion, the Applicant is directed to confer with the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office to either secure a detail firefighter for the special event or to comply with any additional safeguards recommended by that office for the special event. 
2.	In light of the above, and the fact that this historic church is approximately 1315 square feet in area, the Board finds that it is not now required to maintain a fire alarm system.
3.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct Deficiency 3 by providing this facility with two (2) approved fire extinguishers and maintaining and testing the same at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals 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 Approved Subcommittee Decision, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by submitting a written request to be heard by the full Board.  Commencement of such a request does not automatically operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].