The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 10, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jasparro, Jackson, Pearson, Walker and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Parent of the Pawtucket Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Blackburn.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 23, 2009 inspection report which outlined the deficiencies noted by the Pawtucket Fire Marshals Office during a March 18, 2009 and a March 20, 2009 inspection of this facility.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Pawtucket Fire Marshals Office during the January 10, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 23, 2009 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 

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 understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  During the January 10, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by the Pawtucket Fire Marshals Office that the inspector had returned to the facility and reviewed the separation.  The Board was further advised that a small section of the loading dock had been separated by the use of plywood.  The Board was further advised that this plywood assembly had sprinkler coverage on both sides and that the facility was further equipped with a full sprinkler and master fire alarm system.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant planned to upgrade the fire alarm and sprinkler system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Pawtucket Fire Marshals Office.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 6.1.14.4.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the small plywood separation in the loading dock area with sprinkler coverage on both sides.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Marshal is satisfied with the protection in place.
	2-4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 2, 3 and 4 by maintaining a sprinkler contract, by replacing any missing exit signs, emergency lighting and fire extinguishers, and by removing the cited vegetation growth on the side for exit discharge.  
	5.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in which to submit a plan of action to the Pawtucket Fire Marshals Office for the correction of deficiency 5 by upgrading the sprinkler and fire alarm systems in this facility to comply with the code.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in which to implement the above plan of action to bring the sprinkler and fire alarm systems into compliance with the code, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Pawtucket Fire Marshals Office.

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)].