The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 1, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Newbrook, Pearson, Preiss and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Charles Lawrence of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard 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 an October 6, 2004 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 August 1, 2006 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 6, 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 or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 by complying with the provisions of section 7.2.2.5.4 relating to stairway marking.
	2.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of sixty (60) days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiency 2 by providing evidence of testing and maintenance of the sprinkler standpipe system within this facility to the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  
	3-6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 3, 4, 5, and 6 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	7.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 7 by extending the sprinkler system throughout this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office, on or before the statutorily adopted deadline of February 20, 2016. 
	8.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance until August 1, 2007 in order to upgrade the existing fire alarm system, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	9.  During the August 1, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had installed a co-generation electrical plant, maintaining eight (8) turbines.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant only needs three (3) turbines operating at any one time in order to provide sufficient power to this facility.  The Board was further advised that the co-generation electrical plant was monitored in Connecticut by UT Power on a twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week basis.  Finally, the Board was advised that the Applicant would make arrangements to utilize National Grid as a back-up system for the current power system within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance from the cited provisions in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the proposed operation.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection in light of the above.  
	10.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 10 by removing the cited stove and portable cooking appliances at the direction and to the satisfaction of 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)].