The above-captioned cases were originally scheduled for hearing on August 23, 2011 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, the parties determined that it would be appropriate to address certain technical issues and return to the Board on October 25, 2011. Accordingly, the case was reassigned to October 25, 2011. At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Jackson, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson, Dias and Sylvester were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office along with Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert McCall of the Middletown Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioners Jasparro, Burlingame and Walker to grant the Applicant the time relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the dissenting votes of Commissioners Jackson and Dias. 

Prior to the issuance of a written Decision in this matter, the Applicants representative submitted a letter requesting that the Board suspend action in this case, for a sixty (60) day period, to allow the parties to discuss alternatives to installing a wet sprinkler system throughout the entire Green III Building located at 1272 West Main Road. The Applicants representative further advised that the Applicants fire code consultant, from Vision 3 Architects, had met with Chief of Inspections Caron, Deputy Fire Marshal Manning, and the Middletown Fire Chief and that each alternative discussed resulted in generating more technical questions. 

The Applicants latest request was assigned to be reviewed by the Board on December 13, 2011. At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office along with Middletown Fire Chief Ron Doire.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant the requested sixty (60) day time extension to review and develop an alternative plan of action with the State and Middletown Fire Marshals Offices.  The motion was unanimous.  
  
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the above hearings in this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the subject facility is a three level structure with an approximate total area of 15,500 square feet. The Board was further advised and finds that there is concrete floor-ceiling separation between the levels of this facility. The Board was advised and finds that the lowest level of this facility is a day-care occupancy and that the upper levels of this facility constitute an occupancy of business. 
	The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant either has corrected, or shall immediately correct, all outstanding deficiencies within this building with the exception of the sprinkler system. The Board finds that the nature and extent of the sprinkler coverage in this facility is dependent upon both the occupancy classifications and their relationship to the adjacent grade. For example, a three (3) story business building would be required to be sprinkled under the original fire code whereas a two (2) story business building may not have the same requirement. Also, a day-care occupancy below grade would be required to be sprinkled whereas a day-care occupancy at grade would not have the same requirement. The Board finds that, when this building was originally constructed without sprinklers, it may have been classified as two (2) story business building with the third level being considered below grade. However, it appears that the adjoining grade may have been subsequently altered  possibly when the day-care occupancy was introduced. 

In light of the above, the Applicant has requested additional time to allow his fire protection expert and the State and Middletown Fire Marshals Offices to review this situation and develop a plan of action. It is the understanding of the Board that the parties would then determine whether it would be appropriate to effectively restore the original grade and/or modify the existing grade in order to limit the proposed sprinkler coverage to the daycare occupancy on the lowest separated level of this facility.      

	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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	Pursuant to the December 13, 2011 vote taken in this case, the Board hereby grants the Applicant the requested sixty (60) day time extension, from the date of this Decision, to review an alternative plan of action for the installation of full sprinkler coverage with the State and Middletown Fire Marshals. Pursuant to October 25, 2011 hearing in this matter, the Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional thirty (30) days to submit his final plan of action to the State and Middletown Fire Marshals and an additional one hundred and fifty 150 days to implement his final plan of action at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State and Middletown Fire Marshals Offices. 
As outlined above, the Applicant shall have approximately two hundred and forty (240) days, from the date of this Decision, to develop and submit a plan and to bring this facility into compliance with the above approved plan of action. Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the State and Middletown Fire Marshals to extend any of the above timelines for good faith efforts shown by the Applicant.  

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)].