The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 20, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 10, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the East Greenwich Fire District conducted a plan review of the foyer fit out at the above facility.  The Board further finds that the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office determined that the revised plan did not meet Rhode Island Fire Code section 8.6.6(3).  Specifically, the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office determined that the entire floor area of the communicating space was not entirely unobstructed.  The Board finds that a steel beam within this area obstructs the view of the entire space by the occupants.
	The Board further finds that the first floor of this facility is open with two (2) glass walls containing conference rooms.  The Board was further advised and finds that a possible solution would be to have the Applicant construct part of the wall in glass to allow viewing by the second floor occupants.
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8.6.6(3) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited area provided that a portion of the wall, obstructing view by the second floor, be converted to glass at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office.  Specifically, when the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office is satisfied that the Applicant is in substantial compliance with the intent of the above section, the Board shall also be satisfied.
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)].