The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 13, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson, Filippi and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Dennis McGarty of the State Fire Marshals Office and Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Arthur Lowe of the Warwick Fire Marshals office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioner Preiss abstaining.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a July 18, 2005 deficiency letter compiled and mailed by the Warwick Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant, and the Warwick Fire Marshals Office during the December 13, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 18, 2005 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). Finally, the Board notes that the Applicant has voluntarily closed this facility and is in the process of upgrading in accordance with the inspection report.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1-6.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 prior to re-occupancy of this facility.  The Board further grants a variance in order to allow a waiver of the accumulated fines for non-compliance with the fire code, conditioned upon the Applicants correction of the above deficiencies before re-occupancy.
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)].