The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on April 30, 2013 and a decision, outlining an approved plan of action was mailed on June 6, 2013.  By letter dated June 10, 2013, the Board was advised by the State Fire Marshals Office and the Applicant that the Applicant may have misspoken during the scheduled hearing and was requesting that the decision be modified to reflect the installation of mini horns vs. strobe lights within this facility.  The Board notes that the State Fire Marshals office has no objection to this clarification of the original decision.
This case was most recently scheduled for hearing on July 30, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Pearson, Thornton, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Christine Kent of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1-3.  The Board notes that items 1, 2 and 3, as outlined in its decision in file number 130034, shall remain as stated in the original decision.
	4.  (13-343-VN).  The Board hereby modifies item 4 of the original decision as follows:  Based upon the current configuration of this facility and the ready egress access directly to the outside, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the local fire alarm system of this facility and not to provide this facility with emergency forces notification.  The Board notes the record objection of the State Fire Marshal.  Finally, as a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board directs the Applicant to provide mini horns in each of the rooms of this facility and mechanical protection and hard-wired smokes along with fire extinguishers, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board notes that there shall be no grilling on any of the decks of 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)].