The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 4, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Pearson and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael Leber of the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the January 4, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board, the Applicant and the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office utilized a March 29, 2004 inspection report covering this complex.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 29, 2004 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s 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 the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal)”.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance to correct all of the deficiencies outlined in the March 29, 2004 inspection report on or before May 30, 2005.  Upon review of this inspection report the Board notes that there maybe certain items that the Applicant will need a variance for.  Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to submit any variance request to the Board on or before April 1, 2005 in order to allow the Board and the Newport Fire Marshal’s Office to review those requests with the Applicant at a full hearing.

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)].