The above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 28, 2002 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Filippi, Wahlberg, Richard, Burlingame, and Evans were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 28, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought to decrease the maximum occupancy of the normally occupied areas o this building to three hundred (300) people.  The Board was further advised that the East Greenwich Fire Marshal had calculated a maximum occupancy of four hundred and thirty-one (431) people for this facility based on the assembly guidelines.  However, both the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshal agreed that the use of the facility would be substantially limited to artist receptions and other low occupancy events.  The East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office had no objection to the requested occupancy limitation.
	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 defined in Section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.	The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to reduce the maximum occupancy of this facility to three hundred (300) people.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that due to the nature of the operation within this facility, the Applicants request for a reduced maximum occupancy, to better reflect the actual occupancy of this facility, was a valid request.
	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.  
	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.  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.  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.  
	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)].