The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on September 9, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  A decision was thereupon rendered by the Board on November 26, 2008.  By letter dated August 19, 2011, the Applicants representative requested that the file be reopened for further review by the Board.  By letter dated August 23, 2011, the East Providence Fire Marshals Office advised the Board that they were in favor of reopening this file for further review.  Accordingly, the above captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on August 30, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson and Dias were present.  Commissioner Walker recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Oscar Elmasian, James Bellamy and Robert Powers of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates its original findings of fact in file number 080233 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  Additionally, the Board finds that the East Providence Fire Marshal has recommended that they re-inspect this facility and provide a more up to date inspection report in order to allow the Applicant to implement a new plan of action for the correction of all deficiencies.  Finally, the Board finds that the parties are in agreement to extend the above timeline for the correction of all deficiencies, including the sprinklering of this building, until June of 2012.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant an extension of time until June of 2012 to correct the remaining deficiencies in this facility and to provide any and all required sprinkler coverage.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the East Providence Fire Marshals Office shall re-inspect this facility and provide a more up to date inspection and that the Applicant shall work with the East Providence Fire Marshals Office to develop a new, comprehensive plan of action to be completed on or before June of 2012.

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)].