The above captioned case was originally assigned for hearing on October 4, 2011 and at that time the Board granted the Applicant a blanket time variance to correct the remaining deficiencies within this complex on or before January 1, 2012.  The Decision in that case is listed as file number 100072. 
The Applicant subsequently encountered construction difficulties with one of his contractors and requested to return to the Board to explain the situation and request additional time for bringing the sprinkler system into full compliance.  A second hearing was thereupon held on December 13, 2011 at which time the Board directed the Applicant to immediately complete the upgrades to the fire alarm system and to maintain a presence of one or more detailed fire fighter(s) during all hours of occupancy until the fire alarm system upgraded as described in the Decision listed as file number 100072A.  The Board further extended the sprinkler deadline to July 1, 2012.  Finally, the parties were directed to review the proposed structural variances for this complex and return to present their respective positions to the Board on January 10, 2012.
Accordingly, the above-captioned case was rescheduled for hearing on January 10, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jasparro, Pearson, Walker and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections Scott Caron and Deputy Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office along with Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Walker to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates its original findings of fact in its Decisions numbered 100072 and 100072A as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that the State Fire Marshals Office conducted a comprehensive inspection of the fire alarm system within this facility and produced an extensive report (11-1519-IS) on December 22, 2011.  The Board further finds that the State Fire Marshal conducted a follow-up inspection on January 4, 2012 and submitted a written report, dated January 10, 2012 (File  503-6), based upon that inspection.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 22, 2011 fire alarm inspection report along with the January 10, 2012 inspection report as its follow-up findings of fact in this case.  In light of the above, the numbers of the Decision below will correspond with the January 10, 2012 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office. 
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

	1.  During the January 10, 2012 hearing on this matter, the State Fire Marshals Office advised the Board that, since it had previously granted the Applicant a time extension until July 1, 2012 for the completion of sprinkler coverage, it was now requesting that all of the remaining deficiencies should also be completed no later than July 1, 2012.  The Board notes that the Applicant had no objection to this request and plans to comply on or before that date.  The Board further notes that many of the original deficiencies have been corrected by the Applicant as outlined herein.  Specifically, the Board notes that item 1 has been corrected and that the exit access doors from the Registry of Motor Vehicles multi-purpose room currently do not require excessive force to open.
	2.  During the January 10, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the State Fire Marshals Office wished to incorporate its December 22, 2011 fire alarm acceptance report by reference as part of item 2.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Applicant the agreed upon time variance until July 1, 2012 in order to correct deficiency 2 by bringing this facility into compliance with the provisions outlined in the December 22, 2011 fire alarm inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board notes, as outlined in its decision No. 100072A, the Applicant shall maintain a fire fighter detail during hours of public occupancy until all of the non-sprinkler related fire alarm issues have been resolved.
	3.  The Board notes that it had previously granted a time variance until July 1, 2012 for the Applicant to correct deficiency 3 by providing this facility with an approved operational automatic sprinkler system.
	4-6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 4, 5 and 6 of the January 10, 2012 State Fire Marshals inspection report.  
	7.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 12.7.4.2 and table 12.7.4.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing rating of the cited vertical openings in conjunction with the sprinkler coverage to be installed in this facility on or before July 1, 2012.  In light of the sprinkler coverage, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection on the basis of structural hardship.
	8-10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 8, 9 and 10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	11-14.  The Board notes that items 11, 12, 13 and 14 shall be corrected as part of the fire alarm system of this facility on or before July 1, 2012.
	15.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance until July 1, 2012 to correct deficiency 15 by equipping the cited existing elevator with approved emergency recall at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	16.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 16.
	17.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 14.3.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing condition in conjunction with sprinkler coverage.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection based on structural hardship and sprinkler coverage.
	18.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 14.7.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing fire resistance rating and construction separating the south wall from an unrated exit access corridor in conjunction with the sprinkler coverage of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection in light of the Applicants installation of sprinkler coverage.
	19.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 39.2.1.1, 7.1.3.2 and 7.1.3.2.1 and their referenced standards, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the ceilings of this facility in conjunction with sprinkler coverage.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshals Office has no objection in light of structural hardship and the Applicants installation of sprinkler coverage.
	20-21.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 20 and 21 of the January 10, 2012 inspection report.
	22.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the time variance outlined above until July 1, 2012 in order to correct deficiency 22 by properly separating the boiler room of this facility from the exit stairwell.
	23.  The Board directs the Applicant to properly maintain housekeeping throughout this facility during the construction period through July 1, 2012.
	24.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 24.
	25.  During the January 10, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that there was a question as to how the Applicant wished to proceed with the operation of the Traffic Tribunal Court.  In light of the fact that the Traffic Tribunal judiciary and administrative staff may have to be consulted, the Board hereby directs the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office to consult with the Traffic Tribunal to develop a plan of action and to implement that plan of action on or before July 1, 2012, to bring this area of the facility into full compliance with the State Fire Code.  
	26.  The Board directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 26 on or before July 1, 2012 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board notes that during the construction phase of this facility, there shall be certain disruptions that should be addressed by the previously agreed upon plan of action.
	27.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 27 by providing an approved occupancy load sign posted in the Registry of Motor Vehicles waiting area and/or in the court room at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State 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)].