The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 20, 2007 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Richard, Newbrook, Preiss, Pearson, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal, and Fire Chief, Frank Sylvester along with Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal, and Deputy Chief, Arthur Jacques of the Lime Rock Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the March 20, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant has created a new Assembly space within this newly renovated complex. The Board finds that the subject area is one story in height and approximately twenty-six thousand (26,000) square feet in area. The Board further finds that the area has thirty (30) foot high ceilings and eight (8) means of egress. 
The Board further finds that the Applicant and the fire service have developed a plan of action for a capacity of this space to be calculated at concentrated use as opposed to less concentrated use. The Board further finds that the proposed calculation, of concentrated use, would provide for a total Assembly Occupancy of three thousand seven hundred fifty-two (3,752) people. The Board further finds that the Applicant shall maintain an egress capacity, from this facility, that would accommodate five thousand four hundred (5,400) people.   
The Board further finds that the complex is a completely sprinkled facility and is further protected throughout by a new state of the art addressable fire alarm system. The Board further finds that the complex maintains at least two detail firefighters on duty whenever the facility is open to the public. The Board further finds that the Applicant currently maintains a crowd management staff of eighty people of whom seventy-seven are currently certified by the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has worked closely with the Lime Rock Fire Marshals Office in the development of both the Applicants emergency evacuation plan and the Applicants proposed occupancy plan currently before the Board.  
	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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the state fire code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby approves the proposed plan of action to allow the occupancy of the new Assembly portion of this complex to be calculated, under concentrated use, at three thousand seven hundred fifty-two (3,752) people. The Board further finds that the Applicant shall maintain an egress capacity, from this facility, that would accommodate five thousand four hundred (5,400) people.   
	In approving this plan of action, the Board further finds that the complex is a completely sprinkled facility and is further protected, through out, by a new state of the art addressable fire alarm system. The Board further finds that the complex maintains at least two detail firefighters on duty whenever the facility is open to the public. The Board further finds that the Applicant currently maintains a crowd management staff of eighty people of whom seventy-seven are currently certified by the State Fire Marshals Office. Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has worked closely with the Lime Rock Fire Marshals Office in the development of the Applicants emergency evacuation plan.
	Finally, the Board notes that the attached plan of action, submitted by the Applicant and the Fire Service, and incorporated herein by reference, further provides the seating arrangements that have been approved for the various events that are to be commonly held within this new Assembly Occupancy. 

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)].