The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing by a subcommittee of the Board on July 12, 2006 at 9:00 A.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Executive Director Coffey were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals E. Craig Beausoleil and Brian Gartland of the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office.  The subcommittee recommendation was reviewed by the full Board on July 18, 2006 and approved pursuant to a motion made by Commissioner Newbrook and a second by Commissioner Blackburn.  Accordingly, the subcommittee recommendation now has the status of a full Board decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a February 27, 2004 inspection report compiled by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Smithfield Fire Marshals office during the July 12, 2006 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 27, 2004 inspection report as its initial findings 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, is understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
1.  During the July 12, 2006 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the subcommittee was advised by the Acting North Smithfield Fire Marshal that this facility was not a nightclub and that it had a posted occupancy of 290 people.  Accordingly, the subcommittee notes that the building would not be required to be sprinklered.  However, the facility would be required to upgrade the fire alarm system.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to upgrade the fire alarm system of this facility, to meet the new code standards, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's office, within a timetable established by that office for full compliance.
2.  In light of the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's representations to the Board as outlined in item 1 above, the Board notes that this facility would not be required to be sprinklered and therefore the 20 reduction for lack of a sprinkler system would not be necessary in this case.

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 subcommittees recommendation to the full Board, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by requesting such review in writing in accordance with the provisions of RIGL 23-28.3-5(b)4.  Commencement of such an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].