The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Newbrook, Preiss, Filippi and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Hawthorne of the Cranston Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this is an existing place of assembly that is currently classified as a nightclub.  The Board further finds that the place of assembly, calculated at seven (7) square feet per person has a maximum occupancy of approximately one hundred sixty five (165) people.  The Board further finds that the original calculated occupancy for this facility was one hundred (100) people.  The Applicant has requested that he be allowed to maintain the original calculated occupancy of 100 people for this facility.  The Cranston Fire Marshal's office appeared and has advised the Board that it would not oppose the variance, provided the Applicant install an approved master fire alarm box and provide the sound system with an automatic shut off tied to the fire alarm system.
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the original calculated occupancy of this nightclub at one hundred (100) people.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the Applicant will be exempted from sprinkler requirements.  However, the Applicant shall provide this facility with an approved master box with automatic sound shut down with activation of the fire alarm system, and any additional nightclub requirements deemed necessary by the Cranston Fire Marshal's office.
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)].