The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 18, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal David Vartian of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner OConnell to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a June 13, 2005 inspection report compiled by the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Providence Fire Marshals Office during the October 18, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 13, 2005 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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 1 by providing the cited smoke detection, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals office within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	2.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 2 by providing the cited carbon monoxide detection, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals office, within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction of the egress passageways of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant maintains plaster walls and has provided approved solid core wood doors in the existing jambs.  It is the further understanding of the Board that the solid core wood doors are approximately 1  thick and are further equipped with approved self-closers.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has removed the wallpaper from the egress system of this facility.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 by having the fire extinguishers annually inspected.
	5.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiency 5 by properly sealing off any breaches and penetrations in the walls and ceilings of the boiler room area of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal.
	6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 6 by providing approved illumination at the exterior doors.
	7.  During the October 18, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that there is an unprotected vertical shaft located in the boiler room that is used to provide the heating system with makeup air.  The Board was further advised that this shaft commutes to the roof of the building.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the North Providence Fire Marshals office is concerned with this unprotected shaft.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a period of 120 days from the date of this decision in which to correct this deficiency, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Mechanical Inspector and Fire Marshal.  Specifically, the Board would assume that the North Providence Fire Marshal and the North Providence Mechanical Inspector would make a preliminary determination as to whether or not the shaft was needed to provide appropriate make up air for this furnace unit.  If this shaft is not needed, and the existing air supply is sufficient, the Applicant could simply seal off the shaft, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal.  However, if the shaft currently provides makeup air, the Applicant would have the option of rating the shaft to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal or providing the North Providence Mechanical Inspector and Fire Marshal with approved engineered plans for securing the appropriate makeup air to the boiler room.  Again, the Applicant has 120 days from the date of this decision to review his options with the Mechanical Inspector and Fire Marshal and determine whether the make up air is sufficient without the shaft or whether an engineered alternative system is needed.
	8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 8 by providing approved quarterly inspections of the fire alarm system of this facility.
	9.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 9 by providing this facility with an approved fire department access box.
	10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 10 by providing approved interior finish throughout this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals 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)].