The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on September 11, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richards, OConnell, Jasparro, Filippi, Walker and Preiss were present.  The fire service was not directly represented at the hearing.  However, Fire Marshal Brad Cronin advised the Board by fax that the Newport Fire Marshal's Office did not have an objection to the issuance of a variance in this case.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates as its initial finding of fact the information outlined in a December 2, 2006 report prepared by Hughes Associates Fire Protection Engineers/Code Consultants.  Specifically, the Board finds that the glass enclosure walls and stair doors within this facility contain wired glass panels that, in the opinion of the Applicants engineer, probably do not comply with the provisions of RI Life Safety Code section 31.1.1.3(6) or 31.1.1.3(10).  The Board further finds that these are historical elements of the building and that the applicant has proposed to protect these elements with the provision of a non-required automatic sprinkler system.  The Board finds that the Applicant is requesting that it be allowed to maintain the above glass panels and doors with the addition of the automatic sprinkler system.  Finally, the Board finds that this facility is also protected by an approved, municipally connected fire alarm system.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 31.1.1.3(6) and 31.1.1.3(10) in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the wired glass panels in the stairway enclosure walls and stair doors of this facility in conjunction with approved sprinkler coverage as outlined in the December 12, 2006 letter from the Applicants engineer.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Newport Fire Marshal's office has no objection to this plan of action.

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)].