The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 27, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioner Richard, Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Filippi, OConnell, and Pearson were present.  Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Harry J. Hallgring, Jr. of the Little Compton Fire Marshals Office represented the fire service.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner New brook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame. 


FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a September 29, 2006 inspection report compiled by the Little Compton Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Little Compton Fire Marshals Office during the February 27, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the board hereby incorporates the September 29, 2006 inspection report as its initial finding of fact.  Any modification of the boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein.
	Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term approved, as used herein, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 as listed on the September 29, 2006 inspection report have been corrected to the satisfaction of the Little Compton Fire Marshals Office.
17.  During the February 27, 2007 hearing on this matter the Board determined that this facility would best be classified as an organized dining facility as opposed to a nightclub.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to bring the fire detection and protection systems of this facility into compliance with those requirements of an organized dining facility as opposed to a nightclub facility.  The Boards determination was based on the fact that the revenue from food sales was approximately 78-82 percent and that the principal functions of this facility were to provide dining and other events such as wedding receptions and birthday parties.  The only live entertainment currently authorized by the applicant was a single guitar player who appeared approximately four (4) times a year.  In light of the above, the Board determined that the more appropriate classification would be organized dining facility.  Finally, the board herby grants a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in which to allow the Applicant to make the required changes to the fire alarm detection and other protection systems within this facility.
18.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 17.2.2.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing stairs leading from the second floor storage and owners office area.  In granting this variance to allow the stairs to remain as is, the Board notes that there is limited occupancy of this area and that the area is notopened to the public.  Finally, the Board notes that the Little Compton Fire Marshals Office has no objection on the basis of structural hardship.

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)].