The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 15, 2007 at 1:00 PM.  At that time, Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richad, Blackburn, Preiss, Jackson and Pearson were present.  By letter dated May 10, 2007 the Board was advised by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Bruce Rice of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office that his office had no objection to a time variance for the tenant in order to allow for the purchase of the property and complete the necessary work.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board notes that all of the outstanding deficiencies in this facility have been outlined in a February 24, 2004 letter from the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office to the Applicants architect.  Specifically, the Board finds that the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office is requesting a two (2) hour fire separation between the assembly occupancy or a separation that can be reduced with approved sprinkler protection.  The Board further finds that the assembly would require two (2) approved means of egress, a fire alarm system, approved egress from the dwelling unit without passing through the assembly area, egress doors with panic hardware if occupancy exceeded 100, emergency lighting and exit signage, for upper interior finish and protection of the heating system in the basement.
	The Board further finds that this is a wood structure with a restaurant on the first floor and that the structure is on grade so that the front side or the street side of the structure is below grade.  The Board finds that there is an alteration shop on the second floor over the restaurant and three (3) efficiency residential units in the rear.  The Board further finds that the top floor was vacant at the time of the February 14, 2004 inspection.  The Board further finds that the building was constructed approximately in 1920 and that the Applicant has requested a time variance in order to develop a plan of action and to implement the same to bring this facility into full compliance with the code.  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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Marshals).
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
 The Board hereby grants a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to have this facility fully inspected under the current codes to advise the Applicant of any outstanding deficiencies.  The Board further grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the completion of this inspection in which to allow the Applicant to make any of the corrections necessary as a result of the inspection.  Finally, the Board hereby authorizes the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office to extend the above deadlines for good faith efforts being shown by the Applicant for the full compliance of this facility.

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)].