The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 6, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Walker, Jasparro, Preiss and Blackburn were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Frank Mills and Richard Silva of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous with Commissioner Blackburn abstaining.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 6, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was provided with a November 17, 2008 letter from the Applicant outlining the requested relief.  The November 17, 2008 letter was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the January 6, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 17, 2008 letter as its initial findings of fact.  Specifically, the Board finds that the City of Providence had to disconnect the church from the municipal fire alarm system due to the deterioration of the underground wiring.  

The Board further finds that as soon as the church was notified, it embarked upon plans to restore the service and is continuing to do so.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has engaged the services of a security company to provide signal devices at the flow switches of the sprinkler system, so that the security company can detect sprinkler activation and notify the fire department.  The owner has further engaged the services of the architect/Applicant in this case for the preparation of drawings and specifications for the bidding of a new underground fire alarm service from the pedestal in the street to a new master box in the building.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant hopes to connect municipal supervision by the end of January 2009.
	The Board further finds that Phase II of the Applicants plan would provide for an upgrading of the fire alarm system throughout the facility and an upgrading of the existing fire suppression system including new service equipment, the replacement of all sprinkler heads and the addition of sprinkler coverage in the front stair hall.  The Board further finds that Phase II would also include new panic hardware on certain exit doors, new exit signs and emergency lighting and the elimination of a commercial gas range at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  The Applicant has advised the Board that its Phase II upgrade should be accomplished by the end of September 2009.  Finally, the Applicant has advised that it would be returning to the Board with more specific guidelines for the remainder of this project.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to allow third party monitoring and supervision of the flow switches of the sprinkler system of this facility during that period of time the Applicant is working with the Providence Fire Marshal's Office to restore municipal supervision to the sprinkler system of this facility.  The Board notes that the Applicant plans to restore service by the end of the month.  As outlined above, the Board further notes that the Applicant is planning to conclude Phase II of this project on or before September 30, 2009.  Finally, the Board notes that the Applicant may return in the future with additional plans of action and timelines for the remainder of this project.

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 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)].