The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 14, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Hughes of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioners Walker and Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a November 29, 2011 inspection report compiled by the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office during the February 14, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 29, 2011 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, 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.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to contact the manufacturer of the newly constructed membrane structure in order to secure NFPA 701 certification of this particular structure.  The Board grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in which to work closely with the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office and the manufacturer in order to secure more detailed verification, to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to maintain the existing concrete stairs of this facility with upgraded handrails.  The boar hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined in item 1 above in order to submit a plan of action for the above handrails within thirty (30) days and to complete installation within the additional 150 days, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.
	3.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance as outlined in items 1 and 2 above in order to correct deficiency 3 by providing this facility with approved fire alarm coverage installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.
	4.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of sections 11.10.4.3 and 25.6.4.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing new membrane structure with steep slopes without additional safeguards for the build-up of ice.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	5.  The Board directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 5 by providing the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office with all appropriate documentation for the decorations, including all locations.  
	6.  During the February 14, 2012 hearing on this matter, an issue was raised as to certain porous decorations the Applicant wishes to maintain within this facility.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize Inspecta-shield or a similar product designed for application on porous material, approved by the State Fire Marshals Office as a substitution for official certification for some of the decorations within this facility.  The above Inspecta-shield shall be applied at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office, in accordance with the both the fire protection material manufacturers specifications and the State Fire Marshals Office guidelines.

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)].