The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 29, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Burlingame, Coutu, and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler and Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshals Office and Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Moise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Chairman Farrell abstaining from the vote.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a June 22, 2004 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above inspection report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State and Providence Fire Marshals Offices during the June 29, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 22, 2004 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.
	Specifically, the Board finds this facility to be a three (3) story, Type III (000) structure with a mixed occupancy of assembly and business.  The first floor contains the assembly occupancy Desire described by the State Fire Marshals Office as a gentlemens club.  This assembly area has an occupancy load of 296 persons and is considered a nightclub.  At the time of the hearing, there was a question as to whether the existing local fire alarm system in this facility was fully operational.  The Board finds that the facility would now require a municipally-connected system and that the Applicant is in the process of making this upgrade to the existing system.
	The Board finds that the second floor of this facility is occupied by the RI Department of Transportation and is considered a business occupancy.  The Board finds that the third floor is also a business occupancy occupied by the RI Department of Transportation.  The Board finds that the third floor is a smaller floor than the first and second floors.  The Board finds that the third floor is serviced by two open, non-remote stairs.
	It is the understanding of the Board that deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the June 22, 2004 inspection report, have been corrected by the Applicant.  There was no deficiency 5 listed.
	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
	1-4.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected the listed deficiencies 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	5.	There was no deficiency 5 listed on the June 22, 2004 inspection report.
	6.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide the two stairways, between the second and third floors of this facility, with approved smoke barriers, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office within 120 days of the date of this Decision.  The Board hereby grants a variance, from the provisions of sections 39.2.5 and 7.5.1.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of the above stairways.
	7.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 7 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	8.	During the June 29, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the most recent inspection and certification, of the sprinkler system in this facility, was conducted on January 29, 2004.  However, the Board was further advised and finds that the Applicants alarm contractor Clems Electric had recently conducted a test on the existing fire alarm system and that the system did not pass.  The Applicant plans to immediately bring its local fire alarm system into compliance, throughout the entire facility, and to eventually provide the system with municipal connection.  Accordingly, the Applicant has requested 120 days put an emergency bid out for the municipal connection of the fire alarm system.
	In light of the above, the board hereby directs the Applicant to immediately bring the local fire alarm system into full compliance throughout this entire facility.  During this period of time, the Board directs that there shall be no assembly occupancy.  As an alternative to having no assembly occupancy during this period, the Applicant may request a detail of firefighter(s) from the Providence Fire Marshals Office during all hours of Assembly Occupancy.
	In granting the above option, the Board notes that the Applicant would still be required to maintain a firefighter detail, if so directed by the Providence Fire Chief and/or the designee of the State Fire Marshal in the local fire department, in accordance with the provisions of RIGL 23-28.6-5 and 13.7.5.5 et seq. of NFPA 101 as amended.  This would be so even if the facility is otherwise in full compliance with the fire code because these are separate and distinct code requirements for assembly occupancies.  The failure of the Applicant to comply such a directive would automatically place the Applicant in violation of the State Fire Code.
	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days in order to allow for bids to be taken on, and to provide, the existing upgraded local fire alarm system with municipal connection.  If additional time is necessary, after a good faith effort by the Applicant, the Applicant may request additional time from the Board.
	9-12.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days in order to correct the remaining deficiencies 9. 10, 11 and 12 to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	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)].