The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 10, 2011 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Blackburn, Dias and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Ray Gomes of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairperson Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Dias  to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	This Place of Worship was previously before the Board on February 22, 2011 and a Decision was mailed on May 4, 2011 in File No. 110010. Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts its findings in File No. 110010 as its initial findings of fact in this case. In addition, the Board finds that the Applicant is now requesting to limit the total occupancy of the Church building to three hundred sixty (360) persons on the two (2) floors in lieu of the four hundred forty-eight (448) person capacity originally calculated under the code. 
	The Board further finds that the request is being made for two (2) principle reasons. First, the Applicant has advised that the capacity of either assembly space has rarely been reached in recent memory. And, second, providing an approved second means of egress from the rear of the church would impose a significant structural and financial hardship upon the church. Finally, the Board finds that the new exterior exit door being proposed for the church is thirty-six (36) inches wide and would therefore accommodate one hundred eighty (180) people or one half of the reduced occupancy of three hundred sixty (360) people. In light of the above, the Board notes that the Newport Fire Marshals Office has no objection to the requested relief. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants a variance to limit the total occupancy of this Place of Worship to three hundred sixty (360) people on the two (2) floors used for assembly occupancy. In granting this relief based upon the above findings, it is the understanding of the Board that the Newport Fire Marshals Office has no objection. 

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)].