The Decision below is the third Decision issued during 2012 for the above-captioned facility.  As outlined in Board Decision 120072, the above-captioned facility was originally reviewed by a Subcommittee of the Board during a hearing day on Block Island which took place on October 15, 2008.  At that time the Subcommittee recommended that the Owner of the facility be granted a time variance, until the seasonal re-opening of the facility scheduled for May of 2009, to bring the building into compliance with a July 6, 2006 inspection report issued by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Subcommittee recommendations were thereupon submitted to, and approved by, the Board and the Boards Decision, covering file nos. 050536 and 060787, was mailed to the Owner on March 10, 2009.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Owner never re-opened the facility in May of 2009 and that the facility remained closed until the summer of 2012 as outlined herein.
The above-captioned case was then scheduled for hearing on June 12, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, and Commissioners Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jasparro, Walker and Pearson were present.  Vice Chairperson Filippi again recused herself from hearing this Block Island case.  The fire service was represented by Chief Deputy Fire Marshal James Gumbley, Chief of Inspections Scott Caron and Deputy State Fire Marshal Eric Kiernan of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Block Island Fire Chief Tristan Payne did not appear but advised the Board, by correspondence dated May 3, 2012, that he opposed the subject facility from opening at that time.  The Chief Deputy State Fire Marshal further noted the opposition of the State Fire Marshal. 
An initial motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to deny the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Chairman Newbrook and Commissioner Blackburn who noted that the original July 6, 2006 inspection report, issued by the State Fire Marshals Office, did not list the absence of a sprinkler system or the existing fire alarm system as being deficiencies. 
A second motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant the structural relief outlined in file number 120072.  The motion further directed that the file remain open to allow the Applicant and the State Fire Marshal to return if they had further questions or developed a mutually acceptable alternative plan of action for this facility.  This motion was passed unanimously by the members present.
The Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office subsequently advised the Board that a mutually acceptable alternative plan of action had been developed for the reopening of a restaurant on the first floor of the facility.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant wished to present an additional plan of action for the limited use of seven (7) compliant guest rooms in this facility.  The matter was thereupon set down for hearing on June 26, 2012 at 1:00 PM.  A decision outlining the terms and conditions of the proposed plan of action was thereupon issued under file number 120073A.
The Applicant subsequently requested additional relief and was assigned a hearing on July 24, 2012.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief Deputy State Fire Marshal James Gumbley, Chief of Inspections Scott Caron, Chief Plan Review Officer Wade Palazini and Deputy State Fire Marshal Eric Kiernan of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Based upon the Applicants representations, a motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant the requested increased occupancy of nine (9) additional rooms on the second floor of this facility.  This motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioners Pearson, Jackson and Burlingame and the objection of the State Fire Marshals Office.  At that time, the Chief of Plan Review advised the Board that members of his office would re-visit the facility later in the week and report back to the Board. 
The matter was thereupon rescheduled by the Board, to be reviewed on July 31, 2012.  At that time, Acting Chairperson Filippi again recused herself from consideration of this case.  Commissioners Blackburn, Sylvester, Burlingame, Walker and Dias were present for the initial review of this case.  Chief of Inspections Scott Caron advised the Board that the sprinkler system had been completed on the third and fourth floors and that the remaining items would be completed in the spring.  Accordingly, the State Fire Marshals Office did not now oppose the requested increase in occupancy.  However, the Board was not able to secure a vote of five members in accord until the arrival of Commissioner Jackson.  The case was thereupon reviewed again and a motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn to grant the Applicant the relief outlined herein.  This motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board hereby incorporates it findings of fact in its previous decisions in File No. 120073 and File No. 120073A as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has developed a comprehensive plan of safety for utilizing the first level of this facility as a limited place of assembly and for utilizing seven (7) of the rooms on the second floor for limited hotel occupancy.  (File No. 120073A - Attachment A).  The Board finds that the Applicant wishes to expand the original occupancy, by nine (9) additional rooms and the second floor, and that the State Fire Marshals Office has confirmed that the sprinkler coverage has been completed on floors two, three and four. 
	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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants that Applicant a variance to expand the occupancy of this facility as outlined above, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board further grants that Applicant a time variance to bring the remainder of this facility into full compliance with the fire code, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office, prior to the re-occupancy of this facility in the Spring of 2013.  

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)].