As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on July 8, 2014 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Acting Chairman Jackson and Commissioners Booth, Sylvester, Thornton and Walker.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert McCall of the Middletown Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Chris Bouzaid.
TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	An inspection of the above properties was conducted by the Middletown Fire Marshals Office on June 14, 2010.
2.	The Applicant filed an application for variance on June 6, 2010 in accordance with Fire Safety Code Section 6.
3.	The matter was originally before the Board on July 30, 2013 at which time Decision  1001417 was issued, with a mailing date of September 11, 2013.
4.	On June 6, 2014 Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert McCall of the Middletown Fire Marshals Office notified the Board that compliance in the above-captioned matter, which was due on or before March 10, 2014, has not been completed as required by the Decision.
5.	A subsequent hearing on the Application was conducted on July 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
6.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 5 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  100147A and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Middletown Fire Marshals Office Inspection Reports dated June 14, 2010.
2.	Variance Application  100147 dated June 6, 2010 and filed on or about June 29, 2010.
3.	Decision  100147 dated September 11, 2013.
4.	Show Cause Hearing Notice to Applicant dated June 10, 2014.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the July 8, 2014 hearing as exhibits:

1.	None.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The Board finds that the matter was previously heard and a Decision rendered in file  100147 on or about July 30, 2013.
2.	The Board finds that the date of the decision (mailing date) was September 11, 2013.
3.	The Board finds that the in accordance with the Decision the Applicant was granted a variance of thirty (30) days to submit a plan of action to the Middletown Fire Marshals Office and an additional one hundred fifty (150) day to implement the plan of action, due on or before March 10, 2014.
4.	The Board finds that as of June 6, 2014, the provisions of the Decision have not been complied with.
5.	The Board finds that on June 10, 2014 the Applicant was sent notice to appear and show cause why all variances previously granted should not be declared void pursuant to Board Rules 6-2-22 and 6-2-23.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

	The Board hereby reinstates the relief granted pursuant to the previous decision under Rules 6-2-22 and 6-2-23 as follows:

1.	The Applicant shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing in which to submit plans for the installation of a fire alarm system in the above facility to the Middletown Fire Marshals Office for approval.
2.	The Board grants the Applicant a time variance of sixty (60) additional days to install the fire alarm system.

In granting the above relief, it is the understanding of the Board that there is no objection by the Middletown Fire Marshals Office.

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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).


STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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).
2.	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).
3.	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).
4.	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)].