The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 1, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Jasparro, Jackson, Walker, Pearson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Wayne Clark of the Newport Fire Marshals Office along with Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
During the November 1, 2011 hearing on this matter, State Fire Marshals inspection report 11-881-IS was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Fire Marshals Office.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates inspection report 11-881-IS as its initial findings of fact for this facility.  Additionally, the Board has been advised and finds that this facility currently maintains a municipal fire alarm system which shall be upgraded.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant maintains a limited soup kitchen operation on average of once a month in a large room in the basement of this facility.  The Board was further advised and finds that until the facility is brought into compliance with the code, the Applicant has agreed to limit the occupancy of the basement to forty-nine (49) people during this transition period.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has worked closely with both the Newport and State Fire Marshals Offices in order to bring this facility into compliance with the code.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of two (2) years from the date of this decision in which to upgrade the fire alarm system of this facility and to address the remaining items as outlined in inspection report 11-881-IS, dated August 11, 2011 and compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board further grants the Newport Fire Marshals Office the authority to extend the above timeline for good faith efforts being shown by the Applicant.


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)].