The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing before a subcommittee of the Board on September 17, 2009 at 9:30 A.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Dias and Commissioner Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Michalczyk of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Filippi and seconded by Commissioner Dias 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 September 22, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Richard, Jasparro, Pearson, Walker, Dias and Filippi were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of these cases.  A motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioners Richard and Walker.  The motion was unanimous.  Accordingly, the subcommittee determination has the status of a full Board decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the decision below correspond with those of a December 17, 2007 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the September 17, 2009 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 17, 2007 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
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 

	1-2.  During the September 17, 2009 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that there was no apparent rated separation between the mercantile establishment and the apartments above.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant did not have sprinkler coverage in this building as required where there is sleeping above the third story.  
As the hearing progressed, the Applicant asked the Board whether she could have the option of either properly separating the occupancies or providing a limited coverage system of domestically supplied sprinkler heads within the egress system of the apartment units of this facility.  The above heads would be further required to cover both sides of each apartment door within the egress system.  The subcommittee approved the Applicants request for such an option and further granted the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the mailing date of the decision in which to submit her plan of action for either providing proper separation or sprinkler coverage to the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  
The Board shall further grant the Applicant an additional 120 days in order to implement her chosen plan of action.  Finally, the Providence Fire Marshal's office is granted the authority to extend the above timelines for good faith efforts being shown by the Applicant.
	3-10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.


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)).