The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 28, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jackson, Filippi and Jasparro were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Brad Cronin of the Newport Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts as its findings of fact the information provided in an April 27, 2007 six-page attachment to the Applicant compiled by Hughes Associates Fire Protection Engineers/Code Consultants.  As outlined in the six-page attachment, the subject facility is fully sprinklered and alarmed.  The Applicant has presented an alternative plan to the requirements of RIUFC section 13.8.8 that requires the immediate evacuation of the entire facility in an alarm situation unless the fire department official in charge of the scene allows the occupants to remain.  In light of the size of this facility, along with the nature of the operation, the Applicants plan addresses a phased shut-down of the slot machines within this facility in order to effectuate an orderly evacuation of the area in which the fire alarm systems have been activated.  This orderly evacuation would be further coordinated by both the management of the facility and the slot machine provider in conjunction with the local Fire Marshal.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.8 in order to allow the Applicant to implement the plan of action as outlined in the six-page April 27, 2007 summary at the direction and to the satisfaction of the local Fire Marshal within six (6) months of the date of this decision.

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)].