The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on October 4, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, the Board granted the Applicant a time variance, until January 1, 2012, in which to correct the outstanding deficiencies outlined in the State Fire Marshals August 24, 2009 inspection report.  The Board was subsequently advised by both the Applicant and representatives of the State Fire Marshals Office that it did not appear that the Applicant would have the sprinkler system completed by the above deadline.  Accordingly, this matter was rescheduled for review on December 13, 2011 at 1:00 PM.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Dias and Walker were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections Scott Caron and Deputy State Fire Marshal Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office along with Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bruce Rice and Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the dissenting votes of Commissioner Burlingame and Commissioner Dias. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its findings of fact in its Decision in File No. 100072 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board was further advised and finds that the Applicant was originally planning to request structural hardship relief for certain deficiencies outlined in the original August 24, 2009 inspection report.  However, the Board finds that these issues were not reviewed during the original hearing.  Accordingly, the Board shall provide the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office an opportunity to jointly review the above requests and then return on January 10, 2012 to present their respective positions. 
	The Board was further advised by the Applicant and finds that sprinkler system piping has been installed within the facility but that it has not been connected to an approved water source.  The Board was further advised and finds that the original estimated cost of correcting this situation was calculated by the original (current) subcontractor at approximately 76,438.00.  The Board was further advised by the Applicant and finds that after a second (outside) estimate was secured for 26,760, the original estimate was then re-adjusted to 28,375.  In light of the above discrepancies, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant has requested additional time to possibly re-bid, or otherwise address, this corrective work portion of the project.
	The Board was further advised by the State Fire Marshals Office, and finds, that upon re-inspection in preparation for the latest hearing, additional fire alarm and obstruction of egress issues were identified.  The Board was further advised by the fire service that, as an alternative to abatement, detailed fire fighters equipped with radios should be assigned to patrol this facility until the fire alarm issues are fully resolved. The Board notes that the Applicant has agreed to immediately address and correct the obstruction of egress issues with all other contractors working on this project.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board understands that the heat detection portion of the fire alarm system shall not be completed until the sprinkler system is fully functional and certified.  However, the Board has been advised and finds that the remaining fire alarm system, once it is properly brought back on line and approved, has sufficient smoke detection to timely activate in the event of a fire.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to immediately bring the remaining fire alarm system back on line at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Until such time as the non-heat detection portion of the fire alarm system is brought into full compliance, to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office, the Applicant shall provide this facility with detailed fire fighter(s), during all hours of public occupancy, at the direction and to the satisfaction of both the State and Union Fire District Fire Marshals Offices. 
2.	In light of the unique facts and circumstances outlined above, and the fact that this facility shall now be protected initially by a fire fighter detail and then by a vastly improved and updated fire alarm system, the Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional time variance, until July 1, 2012, to provide the newly installed sprinkler system with an approved water source at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Additionally, during the above period, each employee shall be notified of the current conditions and additional notices shall be posted at all exit doors advising that the sprinkler system is currently out of service.  Finally, the Board notes the objection of the State Fire Marshals Office to this time extension, based on the fact that the Applicant could have completed this project with the payment of significant change orders to a contractor who engaged in the activity described above.
3.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to remove all obstructions from the egress system immediately and to further maintain the egress system clear of all obstructions in the future.
4.	The Parties are hereby directed to confer as to the requested structural variances for this facility and to return to the Board on January 10, 2012 to both update the Board as to the Applicants progress and present their respective positions on the requested structural relief . 

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)].