The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on June 29, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  The Board subsequently issued a decision on July 5, 2004 outlining a plan of action for this facility.  The Applicant has returned requesting an additional ninety (90) days to complete the plan of action.  The most recent hearing on this matter took place on December 21, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, Pearson, Filippi, Burlingame and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board hereby relies on its original findings of fact in its decision in file number 040178.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has returned requesting an additional ninety (90) days to bring this facility into full compliance with the original decision.  The Board further finds that there are approximately 296 people within this facility and that the fire alarm system is working but not in full compliance with the code.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has gone out to bid on this project, however, no responses were received.  The Board was advised and finds that the Applicant plans to re-bid the work involved in this project in the near future.  Finally, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant plans to sell this facility and that the tenant will assume the responsibility for compliance.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a ninety (90) day time extension from the December 21, 2004 hearing in order to bring this facility into full compliance with the original decision.  The Board notes that if the Applicant is not in full compliance, that the Applicant shall be required to reduce its overall occupancy by ten (10%) percent if not in full compliance with the fire alarm system, and further reduce its occupancy by an additional 20 (20%) percent if sprinklers are required and the Applicant has failed to so install them.  

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)].