The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing before a subcommittee of the Board on March 30, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard and Jasparro were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Thomas Karpovitz of the Middletown Fire Marshals Office along with Deputy State Fire Marshal Eric Kiernan of the State Fire Marshal's Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to recommend to the full Board that it grant the Applicant the relief outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.  
The above recommendations were thereupon presented to the full Board on April 6, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Filippi, Richard, Walker, Preiss, Dias, Jasparro and Pearson were present.  A motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Filippi.  The motion was unanimous.  Accordingly, the subcommittee determination has the status of a full Board decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject facility is a complex consisting of two (2) connected buildings.  (Irongate I and Irongate II).  The Board finds that Irongate I has been the subject of an inspection report conducted by the State Fire Marshal's office, numbered 10-125-IS.  The Board finds that the inspection report contains a building description that is dated January 29, 2010.  The Board further finds that Irongate II is covered by an inspection report by the State Fire Marshal's office numbered 10-74-IS.  The Board finds that Irongate II has a building description dated January 13, 2010.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the January 29, 2010 Irongate I building description along with the January 13, 2010 Irongate II building description as its initial findings of fact.  The Board further finds that both of the above inspections reports outlined a series of deficiencies within this complex.  The Board further finds that by letter dated March 29, 2010, Executrix Karen Day advised Fire Marshals Karpovitz and Kiernan of a proposed compliance plan for this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 29, 2010 letter from Executrix Karen Day to the Fire Marshals, outlining the plan of action, as its follow-up findings of fact.  The Board notes that both the State and Middletown Fire Marshal's office have no objection to the implementation of the Applicant's plan of action as outlined on the March 29, 2010 letter. 
Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term approved, as used herein, is understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby approves the Applicant's aforementioned March 29, 2010 plan of compliance proposal as the plan of action for the correction of the deficiencies within this facility.  Accordingly, the applicant shall have the time relief outlined in the plan of action to correct the outstanding deficiencies at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Middletown and State Fire Marshal's offices. 

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 submitting a written appeal of the above subcommittee recommendations to the entire Fire Board for review, pursuant to Board Rule 6-2-9.  The Applicant shall thereupon be scheduled for hearing before the full Board of Appeal & Review.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this decision (RIGL 42-35-15(c)).