The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 25, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Sylvester, Pearson, Burlingame, Blackburn, Richard, Jackson, Walker, Jasparro and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief Plan Review Officer Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Walker and Vice Chairperson Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the October 25, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board had before it a building description compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office and dated September 2, 2009.  The Board was further advised and finds that the area in question has been used as a conference room for the Department of Business Regulation and that the Applicant now wants to change this into a public area where members of the public would utilize computers in order to secure licenses and other documents.  The Board was further advised and finds that as a result of this space being modified, additional locking arrangements would be required.  The Board was further advised and finds that the new locking arrangements could be completed by the Applicant in accordance with the use of the 2012 fire code.  Accordingly, the Applicant is seeking to be allowed to utilize this code in securing the above space.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance to utilize the 2012 code in order to secure the above described area at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State 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 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)].