The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 26, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Bruce Rice and Robert Emmott of the Union Fire District.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During the August 26, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this place of assembly consist of approximately eight(8) cinemas with an overall maximum capacity of one thousand and forty two (1042) people.  The Board was further advised and finds that, on average, three to five hundred people are in attendance at this theater.  The Board further finds this theater is fully sprinklered.  The Board further finds that this theater maintains a municipally connected fire alarm system.
	
The Applicant has appeared before the Board in order to request relief from automatic requirement of maintaining a fire fighter on duty.  The Applicant request is based on the Applicant representation that the theater would never hit one hundred (100) people at any one time.  The Applicant is aware that a fire fighter on duty may be mandated by the local fire department at any time.  Again, concern of the Applicant is the automatic requirement for a fire fighter on duty basis solely on the potential occupancy.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.
	
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 conditional variance in order not to automatically be mandated to provide a fire fighter on duty within this complex.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the Union Fire District with approved quarterly information as to how the facility is populated each night.  The Applicant is further direct to provide the Union Fire District with approved quarterly fire alarm inspection reports during this period of time.  If, in the opinion of the Union Fire District, the Applicant is maintaining a total population of under one thousand (1000) people, the Applicant  shall not automatically be required to provide a fire fighter on duty.  However, the Board notes that in any place of assembly such as this, the fire department may still require a fire fighter on duty if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal.  Accordingly, the Applicant is hereby exempted from the automatic requirement, however the Applicant is on notice that the Union Fire District, at any time for any reason it deems necessary, may require a fire fighter on duty at this facility. 

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].