The above-captioned cases were previously before the Board on April 26, 2011 and a decision was issued on June 10, 2011.  In accordance with the decision, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals office were directed to report back to provide the Board with a report as to the progress of this project.  Accordingly, the parties returned on October 25, 2011 to advise the Board on the project and projected completion times.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson, Jasparro, Pearson and Dias were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of the East Providence cases.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections Scott Caron and Deputy State Fire Marshals Octavio Vieira, Robert Couture and Paul Manning of the State Fire Marshals Office.  After the parties reported on the progress at these facilities, a motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in its decision mailed on June 10, 2011 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  Additionally, the Board finds that substantial progress has been made but there are still outstanding questions.  Finally, the Board finds that the State Fire Marshals Office has been closely monitoring these facilities.
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of nine (9) months from the October 25, 2011 hearing in order to correct all remaining deficiencies within these facilities, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Board notes that the Applicant must maintain all current systems during this period of time, and that priority would be given to the residential programs, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board notes that the State Fire Marshals Office is authorized to extend the above timeline for good faith efforts being shown 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)].