The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 11, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Jasparro, Preiss, Pearson, Dias and Filippi were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Frank Sylvester and Arthur Jacques of the Lime Rock Fire Marshals Office along with Chief of Inspections Scott Caron and Deputy State Fire Marshal Christine Kent of the State Fire Marshal's office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Richard and Vice Chairman Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a February 26, 2007 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant, the Lime Rock Fire Marshal's Office and the State Fire Marshals Office during the May 11, 2010 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 26, 2007 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 
	1-9.  During the May 11, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.  The Board was further advised that the State Fire Marshal's office would re-inspect this facility to confirm the correction of the above deficiencies.
	10.  During the May 11, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board was further advised that the Applicant sought relief from providing this facility with approved sprinkler coverage.  At that time, the Board noted that the previous time variance, granted to this and several other facilities, would be reviewed by the Board on May 25, 2010.  In addition, the State Fire Marshal's office indicated that during the course of its re-inspection of this facility, it would review the sprinkler coverage requirements.  Accordingly, the Board determined that the appropriate course of action would be to table this case for sixty (60) days thereby allowing the State Fire Marshal's office sufficient time to re-inspect this facility and further allowing the parties to develop a plan of action and report back to the Board.
	11-12.  The Board has been advised that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 11 and 12.  However, the confirmation of the correction of these deficiencies shall be noted in the State Fire Marshal's follow-up report covering this facility.

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)].