The above-captioned facility was originally scheduled for hearing on July 12, 2011 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as specifically outlined in the Boards Decision in File No. 110102.  The original motion was unanimous. 
The above-captioned case was thereupon rescheduled for hearing on March 13, 2012 pursuant to the request of the State Fire Marshals Office. At that time, the Board was presented with evidence and testimony that the Applicant (the operator of the business) had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the above original Decision. After exploration of several options, a motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant an extension of time to return to the Board with the Owner of the facility. The Applicant was further directed to provide a detailed fire fighter on duty any time the Applicant provided the patrons of this facility with entertainment.  The Board noted that this requirement could be waived, on a case-by-case basis, by the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office. The motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioners Burlingame and Blackburn. Accordingly, the matter was re-scheduled to April 10, 2012 and the Applicant was directed to return to the Board with the Owner on that date. During the intervening period, the Boards staff was advised that the Owner was out-of-state and would not be available until April 24, 2012.  
Accordingly, the above-captioned case was rescheduled for hearing on April 24, 2012. At that time, the operators of the business in this facility were to return with the building Owner. The business operators appeared on that date. However, the building Owner did not appear for the April 24, 2012 hearing. He sent a representative without apparent authority to commit to a plan of action that involved the expenditure of funds. Accordingly, a motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Richard to reschedule the case to be heard on May 1, 2012 or to alternatively close the file in the absence of the building Owner. The motion passed unanimously and the case was rescheduled to be heard on May 1, 2012
Accordingly, the above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on May 1, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. Present during this hearing were the Applicant (currently the operator of the business) and the Owner of the building. At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson, Jasparro, Dias and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office and Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Given of the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office. 
After the case was once again reviewed by the parties, an initial motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioners Jasparro and Burlingame uphold the State Fire Marshals determination that the Applicant had voided the original variances by allowing the occupancy of this facility to significantly exceed (on more than one occasion) the Boarddirected maximum of 170 people as outlined in Item 13 of the original Decision.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Jackson. 
After further review of the case, a second motion was made by Vice Chairperson Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro. This motion reinstated the original relief granted in the Boards Decision in File No. 110102 with the exception of the original plan to address the sprinkler system as outlined in Item 13. The motion further granted the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the mailing date of the Decision to develop and submit plan of action for the installation of an approved sprinkler system within this facility and an additional one hundred twenty (120) days to complete the sprinkler installation to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office. The motion further granted the State Fire Marshals Office the ability to extend the above timelines for good faith efforts on behalf of the Applicant. The above relief was contingent upon the Applicant maintaining the occupancy of this facility at or below the original maximum of 170 people until the sprinkler is installed by the Applicant and inspected and approved by the State Fire Marshals Office. Once the facility was fully sprinkled, the Applicant would be allowed to maintain an Assembly Occupancy on the second floor of this facility and the Narragansett and/or State Fire Marshals Offices could re-calculate  the maximum occupancies for this facility as a sprinkled assembly occupancy. The above relief was further contingent upon the Applicant continuing to secure a fire fighter detail from the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office any time the building was to be occupied as a nightclub. Failure of the Applicant to secure such a fire fighter detail would specifically void the above relief.  

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the original October 5, 2011 Decision identified as file number 110102. Except as outlined below, the Board hereby incorporates its original findings of fact, in the above Decision, as its initial findings of fact in this case. 
	The Board further finds that Item 13 of the original Decision directed the Applicant to collect sales figures for the period between July 12, 2011 and July 12, 2012 in order to determine whether his primary revenue was from the sale of food or from the sale of alcohol. The Board further finds that during this period the Applicant was specifically directed to maintain the occupancy of this facility at 170 people. 
The Board further finds that during the off season the Applicant, on more than one occasion, increased the occupancy significantly above the 170 person maximum outlined in the original Decision. 
Specifically, based upon the un-refuted evidence and testimony presented, the Board finds that on early Saturday morning, February 18, 2012, the Narragansett Fire Marshal and Police Officials determined that the occupancy had been exceeded by at least fifty (50) people for a total of 220 patrons. 
The Board further finds that during the early morning of the very next day, the Applicant again exceeded the 170 person limit. On February 19, 2012, the Applicants facility was calculated as maintaining a total verified occupancy of 325 consisting of 298 patrons and 27 staff members. 
The Board further finds that, as a result of the above overcrowding and other related issues, the Town of Narragansett, after due process and a hearing, suspended the Applicants operations for a period of time. 
   The Board finds that the Fire Code restricts Assembly occupancy, in non-sprinkled combustible buildings, to the first floor level. The Board finds that the Applicant is operating an Assembly occupancy on the second level of a non-sprinkled combustible building in violation of the above restriction. The Board further finds that the Applicant has also been advised that sprinklers would also be required pursuant to Rhode Island Life Safety Code Section 13.3.5.1 et seq. 
The Board finds that this facility was originally inspected on November 11, 2010 and re-inspected on March 22, 2011. The Board finds that the March 22, 2011 re-inspection report was before it during the original July 12, 2011 hearing on this matter. The Board finds that the Applicant, the Owner and the parties Architect presented an alternative compliance plan of action during the original hearing. 
The Board finds that, during the intervening period, the Owner of the facility commenced the process of contacting sprinkler companies and has, as of the May 1, 2012 hearing on this matter, secured three (3) quotes from the contacted sprinkler companies for the installation of sprinklers within the subject facility. The Board finds that, if sprinklers are determined to be required, the Owner  is seeking additional time to install the sprinkler system.      
   	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  12	The Board has determined that the Applicant specifically violated the one hundred seventy (170) person occupancy restriction, on at least two occasions, during February of 2012. Accordingly, the Board finds that its original Decision in File No. 110102, mailed on October 5, 2011, is now void and without effect. Pursuant to the subsequent hearings on this matter, the Board grants the Applicant and the Owner the following relief:
 	The Board hereby directs the Applicant and/or the Owner to correct any remaining deficiency, as outlined within items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the March 22, 2011 re-inspection report complied by the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office, at the direction, to the satisfaction, and within a timetable established by, the Narragansett and State Fire Marshals Offices.  
13.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant and the Owner a time variance of thirty (30) days from the mailing date of the Decision to develop and submit a plan of action for the installation of an approved sprinkler system within this facility. The Board notes that the Owner has already secured three (3) quotes from sprinkler companies to complete this work.   
The Board further grants the Applicant and the Owner an additional one hundred twenty (120) days to complete the sprinkler installation to the satisfaction of the State and Narragansett Fire Marshals Office. The Board further grants the State Fire Marshals Office the ability to extend either or both of the above timelines for good faith efforts on behalf of the Applicant and/or Owner. The Board notes that the above time variance is contingent upon the Applicant maintaining the occupancy of this facility at or below the original maximum of 170 people until the sprinkler system is installed by the Applicant and inspected and approved by the State Fire Marshals Office. 
Once the facility is fully sprinkled, the Applicant shall be allowed to maintain an Assembly Occupancy on the second floor of this facility and the Narragansett and/or State Fire Marshals Offices shall re-calculate the maximum allowable occupancy for this facility as a fully sprinkled place of assembly. Once the facility is fully sprinkled, the above relief shall be further contingent upon the Applicant continuing to secure a fire fighter detail from the Narragansett Fire Marshals Office any time the building is to be occupied as a nightclub. Failure of the Applicant to secure such a fire fighter detail shall specifically void the relief as outlined above.  
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)].