The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 24, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Richard, Jackson, Preiss, Pearson, Jasparro, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Lutz, Mills and Silva of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioners Preiss and Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject complex is an apartment community consisting of twenty-six (26) two-story buildings containing 144 apartments along approximately thirty-five acres of the North End of the City of Providence.  The Board further finds that the owner of this facility purchased this property in April of 2006 and immediately began making improvements to the property.  The Board further finds that the owner hired a sprinkler contractor in order to install sprinkler coverage in each building and a fire alarm contractor to install individual fire alarm systems in each building.  The Board finds that the sprinkler contractors original plan was to provide 26 live water taps that the fire alarm contractor would connect to the tamper switch and to each of the 26 fire alarm panels.  However, the Board finds that the sprinkler contractor changed their original plan and only provided three (3) main risers that would branch off into each of the other 23 buildings.  The Board further finds that the sprinkler contractor dug trenches to complete this installation.  
	The Board finds that by e-mail dated June 10, 2008, the owners representative advised the Providence Fire Marshal's office that they were more than willing to comply with the existing code and that the money for this compliance was in their budget.  They further advised the Providence Fire Marshal's office that the only reason that they had not brought this facility into compliance with the code was an anticipated code change.  
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to design a plan to bring the fire alarm system of this facility into full compliance with the code.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant an additional thirty (30) days in order to allow the Providence Fire Marshal's office to review and approve the planned compliance with the fire alarm system.  Finally, the Board grants the Applicant an additional 120 days to complete the installation of the fire alarm upgrades for this facility to bring this fire alarm into full compliance with the code.  Accordingly, the above plan of action for the submittal, review, approval and installation of the fire alarm upgrades shall be 180 days from the date of this decision.

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)].