As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on May 6, 2014 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook, Vice-Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Blackburn, Booth, Burlingame, Jackson, Richard, and Thornton.
Department of Administration Deputy Chief Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Hughes of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Douglas Truesdale, VP  Board of Directors.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under Chapter 23-28.3, entitled the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Kevin Muoio [President  Board of Directors] of 48 West Street, East Greenwich, RI on March 26, 2014.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File 140035 opened on March 31, 2014.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on May 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 5 to 2 vote with Commissioner Blackburn and Vice-Chairperson Filippi in opposition and Commissioner Booth abstaining from the vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal 140035 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application 140035 dated March 26, 2014 and filed on March 31, 2014.
2.	East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office Plan Review letter dated March 26, 2014.
3.	E-mail from East Greenwich ADSFM Steven Hughes dated April 16, 2014.
4.	Decision 120121 dated March 8, 2013.
5.	Amended Decision 050075B dated May 12, 2010.
6.	Decision 050075A dated February 9, 2007.
7.	Decision 050075 dated December 7, 2006.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the May 6, 2014 hearing as exhibits:

1.	Applicants 3 1  Plan of Action.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The Decision below corresponds with the March 26, 2014 plan review letter compiled by the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  The above letter was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office during the May 6, 2014 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 26, 2014 plan review letter 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.
2.	The matter was previously before the Board on several occasions and decisions issued as follows:
a.	Decision  120121 dated March 8, 2013.
b.	Amended Decision 050075B dated May 12, 2010.
c.	Decision 050075A dated February 9, 2007.
d.	Decision 050075 dated December 7, 2006.
3.	The building is currently exempt from the requirement for automatic sprinklers as a performance theater in accordance with NFPA 101 (2012) section 13.3.5.1.1(5).
4.	The Applicant is now seeking to utilize the facility as a traditional movie theater on a limited trial basis.
5.	The East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office is in opposition to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of NFPA 101 (2012) section 13.3.5.1 requiring automatic sprinklers in a (movie) theater place of assembly in accordance with the following restrictions:
a.	The number of movie events shall not exceed ten (10) events per calendar year.
b.	The occupant load for any movie event shall not exceed two hundred (200) patrons.
c.	The facility shall provide certified crowd managers at all movie events, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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).
2.	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).
3.	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).
4.	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)].