The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 5, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Jasparro, Jackson and Filippi were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Richard Vespia, Richard Fournier and Richard Silva of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Blackburn.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject complex, located at 125 Canal Street and 5-7 Steeple Street, to be adjacent three (3) and four (4) story buildings.  The Board finds that the Applicant has not addressed the determination of the Providence Fire Marshal that it appears that there is no separation between them (the subject buildings).  The Board further finds that both buildings have mixed-use occupancies consisting of two assembly occupancies, four mercantile occupancies, and a total of five apartments.  The Providence Fire Marshals Office has reported, and the Board further finds, that both buildings appear to be of Type III (200) ordinary construction.  The Board further finds that the subject buildings have a partial sprinkler system that does not meet current sprinkler standards.  The Board finds that the Applicant has not addressed the determination of the Providence Fire Marshals Office that sprinkler coverage is mandated pursuant to RILSC sections 13.1.6 and 31.3.5.3, and NFPA 13.4.1  Rather, the Applicant has apparently accepted this determination and requested a time variance to upgrade the existing sprinkler coverage in this complex.
	The Board further finds that, at the time of the inspection, the buildings were not protected by required municipally-connected fire alarm systems.  The Board finds that the Applicant has encountered difficulties in providing municipal connection because the telephone systems utility pipe, through which an independent fire alarm system connection line would have to pass, was obstructed.
	The Board further finds that 125-129 Canal Street is a mixed use occupancy with an assembly occupancy on the first floor.  This first floor assembly occupancy is a restaurant known as 3 Steeple Street.  The Board finds that 3 Steeple Street has three remote means of egress and a maximum occupancy of one hundred (100) patrons.  The Board finds that the second floor of 125-129 Canal Street consists of a separate assembly occupancy with two means of egress and a maximum occupancy of one hundred (100) patrons.  The Board finds that the second floor assembly is utilized as a banquet facility.
	The third floor of 125-129 Canal Street consists of an apartment on the south side and a mercantile occupancy, known as the Art Freek Tattoo on the north side.  The Board finds that the third floor apartment extends to the fourth floor and maintains a single means of egress.  The Board finds that there is an additional apartment, with two means of egress, on the fourth floor.
	The Board finds that the 5-9 Steeple Street building is a mixed-use occupancy consisting of a total of three apartments on the second, third and fourth floors.  The Board further finds that the third floor maintains a currently unoccupied mercantile occupancy formerly consisting of a record store known as Cathoutic Records.  The Board further finds that there are two (2) mercantile (restaurant) occupancies located on the first floor of the 5-9 Steeple Street building.  The Board finds that one is a restaurant known as Twin Rivers with a maximum occupancy load of forty-eight (48) patrons, and that the second is also a restaurant, known as Caf Pazzo with a maximum occupancy load of forty-five (45) patrons.  The Board further finds that the Caf Passso restaurant extends from the first to the second floor.
	In addition to the above findings, the Board notes that the numbers referenced within the Decision below correspond with those of a November 8, 2005 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the June 5, 2007 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 8, 2005 inspection report as its additional findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards additional 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 Fire Marshals).
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
A.	 During the June 5, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by the Applicant that he had a signed contract with a sprinkler contractor.  This contract provided for the installation of upgraded sprinkler coverage, throughout the complex, in accordance with NFPA 13.  The Applicant therefore requested a time variance in order to complete the installation of upgraded sprinkler coverage throughout this complex.
The Board hereby grants the Applicants request and provides him with a time variance, until November 1, 2007, to complete the above-referenced upgraded sprinkler coverage throughout this complex.
In order to accomplish the above installation in a timely manner, the Board, during the June 5, 2007 hearing, directed the Applicant to have his sprinkler contractor provide the Providence Fire Marshals Office with complete plans, covering the sprinkler upgrades, within thirty (30) days of that date.  The Board further directed the Providence Fire Marshals Office to review, approve and return the above plans within sixty (60) days on the June 5, 2007 hearing date.
The Board notes that the items 1, 12, 16, 22, 30, 36, 43 and 49 all relate to the upgraded sprinkler coverage being requested by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  Accordingly, the above time variance, allowing for the upgrading of this sprinkler system on or before November 1, 2007, is hereby extended to cover the above sprinkler deficiencies (1, 12, 16, 22, 30, 36, 43 and 49) listed in the Providence Fire Marshals November 8, 2005 inspection report.
B.	 It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 31, 33, 41 and 44 as listed on the November 8, 2005 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
C.	During the June 5, 2007 hearing, the Board was advised that this facility has been fully alarmed, with a local fire alarm system, and that the only issue remaining was to provide this alarm system with municipal connection.  However, the Board was further advised that the public utilitys conduit, through which the municipal connecting line would normally pass, was apparently obstructed and will not accept the required line.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a time variance, covering items 8, 15, 20, 27, 34, 38, 47 and 52, which all relate to the municipal fire alarm coverage being requested by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  This time variance would allow for the municipal connection of the fire alarm system on or before November 1, 2007.  The Board further grants the Providence Fire Marshals Office the authority to extend the above deadline while the Applicant is making good faith efforts to resolve this issue with the public utility whose conduit has been apparently damaged.
D.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance, in order to correct items 6, 7, 10, 23, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 50, 51 and 53 on or before November 1, 2007, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
E.	During the June 5, 2007 hearing on this matter, the Applicant requested a variance from the cited egress requirements from the mezzanine or loft level of the third floor apartment as cited in item 26 of the November 8, 2005 inspection report.  In the event that this variance is necessary, the Board hereby grants the Applicant the requested relief to maintain a single means of egress from the upper mezzanine (loft) level of the third floor apartment located at 125-129 Canal Street.
F.	Finally, the Board hereby grants a time variance in order to allow the Applicant to correct deficiencies 45, 46 and 48, prior to the re-occupancy of the cited mercantile space located on the third floor of 5-7 Steeple Street  formally Cathoutic Records. 
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)].