The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on July 28, 2009 and a decision rendered in file 090195 was mailed to the parties on October 1, 2009.  By letter dated December 9, 2010, the Applicant advised the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office had requested a re-hearing before the Board with regard to the sprinkler installation issue.  
In light of the above, this case was rescheduled for hearing on February 8, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Blackburn, Dias, Preiss and Jasparro were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Lisa Krapf, Brian Kreizinger and Richard Fournier of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jasparro and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant additional time relief from the original decision as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous. 

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original decision in file number 090195 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that the original decision would have granted the Applicant 180 days from the mailing date to provide this facility with a fully compliant sprinkler system.  Specifically, the Applicant would have had until October 1, 2010 to install the sprinkler system.  Based on the testimony taken from both the Applicant and the fire service, the Board finds that the sprinkler piping for this facility has apparently been installed.  However, the water service to the building has not been upgraded in order to activate the sprinkler piping.  The Board further finds that as of the February 8, 2011 hearing date, the Providence Department of Public Works had instituted a moratorium on the opening of streets in order to lay the additional sprinkler pipeline.  The Board was further advised by Lt. Krapf of the Providence Fire Marshals Office that the sprinkler issue in this case dated back to September of 2005.  Finally, the Board finds that the sprinkler system in this facility must be activated as soon as possible to protect the occupants of this facility.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  During the February 8, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Applicant was advised to bring this facility into compliance with the code in accordance with the following timetable.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to bring the facility into compliance within the following timetable, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  In the event the Applicant fails to bring the facility into compliance and address the additional requirements of the Board within the timeframes outlined below, the Providence Fire Marshals Office may submit this matter to the State Fire Marshals Office for further action.
	a.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to submit all necessary paperwork for the connection of the sprinkler system within this facility to the Providence Water Supply on or before March 1, 2011.
	b.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to submit all necessary paperwork and documentation for the trenching and installation of piping for the sprinkler system to the Providence Department of Public Works on or before March 1, 2011.
	c.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional time variance until April 1, 2011 in order to address all remaining vertical opening issues as outlined in the original decision and inspection, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	d.  Finally, the Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional time variance of thirty (30) days from April 1, 2011 in order to secure the water supply to the sprinkler system of this facility and to bring that sprinkler system into full compliance with the code at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The Board hereby grants the Providence Fire Marshals Office the authority to extend the above deadline by up to an additional sixty (60) days for good faith efforts being demonstrated 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)].