The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 21, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Newbrook, Pearson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal David Cionfolo of the State Fire Marshals Office along with ADSFM Gregory Unsworth and ADSFM John Wheeler of the North Providence Fire Marshal's Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the November 21, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board utilized a July 17, 2006 inspection report compiled by the State and North Providence Fire Marshal's office.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 17, 2006 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.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance until June 1, 2007 for the full installation, testing and certification of the fire alarm system within this complex.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a second time variance in order to correct the remaining deficiencies on the July 17, 2006 inspection report on or before December 31, 2007.  
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.2.8.3.1 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing windows at approximately five (5) square feet as emergency escape windows.
	3.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to properly seal off the pipes leading to this building at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State 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 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)].