The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 23, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jackson, Pearson, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Wayne Clark of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioner Dias to approve the Applicants plan of action as identified herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the September 23, 2008 hearing on this matter, the Board was presented with a September 19, 2008 variance request from the Applicants engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc.  Specifically, the September 19, 2008 letter requested nine (9) specific items for variance which the Newport Fire Marshal's office did not object to.  In addition, the Board had before it a September 22, 2008 letter from the Applicants architect, Newport Collaborative Architects, outlining four (4) additional variance requests.  Again, there was no objection.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the September 19, 2008 engineers report and request along with the September 22, 2008 report and request of the architect for relief as its initial findings of fact in this case.  It is the understanding of the Board that in light of the above reports, the Newport Fire Marshal's office did not object to the requested relief.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the requested variances as outlined in the September 19, 2008 variance request from Hughes Associates, Inc. and further grants the variances as outlined in the September 22, 2008 variance request of the Newport Collaborative Architects.  Accordingly, the variance requests in the above two (2) referenced documents have been approved as part of the plan of action for this facility by the Board.

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)].