This case was previously before the Board and a decision outlining a plan of action was issued on May 18, 2004.  The Applicant has now returned requesting an extension of time in order to comply with the decision.  The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on September 28, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Burlingame, Pearson, Newbrook, O’Connell and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Michalczyk of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board incorporates its original findings of fact in file number 040038 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that the Applicant is now requesting an extension of time in which to comply.  The Applicant has advised the Board that he has removed the steel grates from the access windows.  The Applicant has further advised the Board that he has contacted contractors for fire alarm, egress doors, the fire escape system and sprinkler coverage.  The Providence Fire Marshal’s office appeared and had no objection to the Applicant coming back with a full plan of action to correct these deficiencies including a timetable acceptable to the Providence Fire Marshal.  It was the determination of the Board that thirty (30) days to return with a plan of action would be sufficient for the Applicant.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days to return to the Providence Fire Marshal’s office with an approved plan of action for correction of the remaining deficiencies in this facility.  The above plan of action shall include a detailed fire alarm plan, a detailed egress door plan, a detailed fire escape plan and a detailed plan outlining the sprinkler coverage for this facility.  If the Providence Fire Marshal’s office approves the plan, the Applicant may proceed accordingly.  

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].