The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 28, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Filippi and Evans were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bruce Rice, Robert Emmott and Brian Ballou of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Vice Chairman Coutu  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 2, 2004 inspection report compiled by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the June 28, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 2, 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. 
	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 State Fire Marshal.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  This case involves one of three complexes owned by the Applicant and reviewed by the Board on June 28, 2005.  In the development of an overall plan of action, the Board directed that the Applicant should have 120 days to make the corrections in the first complex as outlined in decision 040248.  The Board granted an additional 120 days in order to allow the Applicant to make corrections in the facility covered in decision 040250.  Finally, the Board provided the Applicant with another 120 day period, or until September 1, 2006 to make all of the final corrections in the above captioned complex.  Accordingly, the Applicant shall have until September 1, 2006 to correct all remaining deficiencies as outlined herein.  The remainder of this decision shall be subdivided by reference to the building numbers in the inspection report dated June 2, 2004.

Building 1
	1-8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals office.

Building 2
	1-2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1 and 2 of Building 2.
	3.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 3 by providing this area with approved fire alarm coverage and to further provide proper separation and compartmentalization of the building at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District.  Finally, the Board directs the Applicant to properly enclose the cited boilers at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District on or before September 1, 2006.

Building 3
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that there were no deficiencies noted for Building 3.

 
Building 4
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to provide this facility with approved fire alarm and sprinkler coverage, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of  the Union Fire District Fire Marshals office on or before September 1, 2006.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals office.

Building 5
	1-2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1 and 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals office.
	3.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 3 by providing this facility with an approved fire alarm system installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of  the Union Fire District Fire Marshals office on or before September 1, 2006.

Building 6
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that item 1 is a recommendation as opposed to a requirement for this facility.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals office.

Building 7
	1-3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2 and 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District 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)].