The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 8, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Richard, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Christopher Dillon of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	Based on the testimony and documentation presented, the Board finds that the referenced property is a four-story masonry building with a basement.  The Board further finds that the building contains approximately 14,734 square feet of area.  The Board further finds that the construction classification of the building appears to be 3B(200) ordinary construction per NFPA 220.  The Board further finds that the building consists of four (4) stories of vacant space.  The Board further finds that the building was previously approved for a municipally connected fire alarm system.  The Board further finds that the municipally connected fire alarm system is currently disabled and inoperable, and that there is ongoing demolition in preparation for a new renovation of the entire building.
	The Board finds that this facility was transferred to the current owner by the City of Providence.  The Board further finds that the current owner has a plan of action for the installation of a new sprinkler and fire alarm system by the end of the May 2010.  The Board finds that the Applicant shall work closely with the Providence Fire Marshal's office in the implementation of this plan of action.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm and sprinkler system by the end of May 2010.  The Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal's office would have the authority to extend the above deadline for good faith efforts being made by the Applicant prior to the re-occupancy of this facility.  Finally, the Board notes that the Applicant will not be required to provide a temporary system in this facility during the construction phase.

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)].