The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 13, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Brad Cronin and Christopher Kirwin of the Newport 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the June 13, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant is planning to fully enclose a swimming pool located within this hotel complex.  As part of the plan review on this enclosure, the Newport Fire Marshals office provided the Applicant with a list of seven (7) deficiencies to be corrected prior to approval of the structure by that office.  The Board further finds that the enclosure of the subject swimming pool creates an enclosed place of assembly which must be brought into compliance with the provisions of the State Fire Code for new structures.  The Board further finds that the plan review conducted by the Newport Fire Marshal accurately reflected the code requirements for this facility.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to provide this subject facility with approved illumination, emergency lighting, and door hardware, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Newport Fire Marshal's office.  As a condition of this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the Newport Fire Marshal's office with building design plans stamped by a Rhode Island engineer.  Finally, the Board directs the Applicant to comply with any additional safeguards deemed necessary by the Newport Fire Marshal's office for the safe occupancy for this structure.

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)].