This matter was originally before the Board on June 29, 2010 at which time the Board directed the Applicant to submit a comprehensive plan of action for the correction of the deficiencies to the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office.  The parties returned on July 27, 2010 and the Board was advised that the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office had not received this plan of action.  Accordingly, the Board gave the Applicant an additional thirty (30) days to submit the plan.  In the event the Applicant submitted the plan within the above timeline, the Applicant would be provided with an additional 120 days to complete the work.  The Board further directed that the East Providence Fire Marshal's office would be authorized to extend the above deadline.  This relief was granted pursuant to a motion by Commissioner Richard with seconds by Commissioners Dias and Jackson.  The motion was unanimous.  

The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office reported to the Board that the Applicant had again failed to provide it with a comprehensive plan of action covering this facility.  The East Providence Fire Marshal's office further advised the Board that there was only limited sprinkler coverage on the first floor of this facility and that there was no fire alarm system within this facility.  The East Providence Fire Marshal's Office further requested that the Board deny any additional time relief and allow the parties to proceed to court if necessary to secure full compliance.

In light of the above travel of this case and the fact that the Board has twice provided the Applicant with an opportunity to present the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office with comprehensive plans, a motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to deny any more time relief and to allow the parties to move forward and work with the State Fire Marshal and, if necessary, the judicial system in bringing this facility into full compliance with the code.  The motion passed with Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jackson, Jasparro, Pearson and Dias voting in the affirmative.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts the original inspection report dated October 22, 2009 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that this facility has no fire alarm system and currently maintains several of the deficiencies outlined in the October 22, 2009 inspection report.  The Board further finds that on June 29, 2010 and again on July 27, 2010 it directed the Applicant to provide the East Providence Fire Marshal's office with a comprehensive plan of action for the correction of the deficiencies outlined in the October 22, 2009 report.  The Board further finds that the time variances that the Applicant received have now expired and that the Applicant never provided the East Providence Fire Marshal's office with the above comprehensive plan of action.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the parties would best be served with the intervention of the State Fire Marshal's Office and/or the Rhode Island Judicial System in this case.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  In light of the Applicant's failure to provide the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office with an approved comprehensive plan of action for the correction of the deficiencies within this facility, the Board hereby denies the Applicant any additional time relief and directs the parties to move forward with the State Fire Marshal's Office and, if necessary, the Rhode Island Judiciary in order to assist the Applicant in bringing this facility into compliance with the State Fire Code.

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)].