The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on December 13, 2005 at 1:00 P.M. and a decision outlining a plan of action for this facility was mailed on January 19, 2006.  The Applicant and the Fire Marshal thereupon reappeared before the Board on March 14, 2006 and reported that substantial progress had been made in addressing the remaining deficiencies.  At that time, the Applicants fire protection expert advised that he would be working with the Providence Fire Marshal's office to address all outstanding deficiencies.  On or about May 5, 2006, the Applicants representative was formally advised by the Providence Fire Marshal's office that it would be requesting an independent review pursuant to both the provisions of RI Life Safety Code  5.1.4 and RI Uniform Fire Code  1.15.1.  The Applicant has requested an expedited hearing in order to review that determination by the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  Accordingly, the above case was most recently scheduled for hearing on May 23, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Burlingame, Preiss, Blackburn and Richard were present.  Chairman Farrell recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Joseph Michalczyk and Richard Vespia of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  After review of this matter and hearing arguments on both sides, a motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn to deny the Applicants request for relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this is an existing four story masonry exterior building with wooden floors, frames and supports partially built in 1880 with numerous renovations having been made over the years, with and without permits.  The entire building is approximately 846,770 square feet and its original use was industrial.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has been working closely with the Providence Fire Marshal's office and has hired a fire protection expert in order to address the outstanding deficiencies in this facility.  The Board further finds that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has the authority to request independent review pursuant to section 1.15.1 of the 2003 edition of NFPA 1 and also under section 5.1.4 of the 2003 edition of NFPA 101.  Finally, the Board finds that the above code sections were adopted as the Rhode Island Fire Safety Code pursuant to section 23-28.1-2(a) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby denies the Applicants request not to provide the Providence Fire Marshal's office with independent third part review of its plan of action for this facility.  In denying this request, the Board notes that the above two (2) sections of the National Fire Code grant the Providence Fire Marshal's office the authority to request the above review and that these sections have been incorporated as a component of the Rhode Island Safety Code pursuant to section 23-28.1-2 of the Rhode Island General Laws.  While the Board is sympathetic to the Applicants allegations of economic hardship, the Board notes that the requested independent third party review, in light of the massive size of this structure, being 846,770 square feet, is not an unreasonable request by the Providence 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)].