The above-captioned case was previously scheduled for hearing on June 7, 2005 and a plan of action was developed with a subcommittee of the Board.  The plan of action was thereupon recommended to the full Board and approved on June 14, 2005.  A decision outlining the plan of action was thereupon issued on August 4, 2005.  By letter dated December 29, 2005, the Applicants attorney advised the Board that the Applicant would need additional time to complete the plan of action. 
The Applicants request for additional time was thereupon scheduled for hearing on February 7, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Blackburn, Burlingame, Pearson, Filippi, OConnell and Newbrook were present.  Commissioner Preiss recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in file number 040395 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has been proceeding in a good faith effort to bring this facility into full compliance with the plan of action developed by the parties and outlined in the previous decision.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has secured all of the approvals necessary for the construction necessary to complete this plan of action.  Finally, the Board finds that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection to a reasonable time for the completion of this project.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time extension through April 30, 2006 in which to complete the construction necessary to bring this facility into full compliance with the plan of action outlined in file number 040395.  In granting this time extension, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office considers it reasonable in light of the circumstances, and therefore has no objection.


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)].