This case was heard by the Board on February 6, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  The Applicant was assigned an expedited hearing for review of the issues he raised in his February 1, 2007 correspondence to Chairman Coutu.  In that correspondence, the Applicants representative advised that the Applicant had been denied its liquor license renewal at a hearing of the Providence Board of Licenses on January 29, 2007.  The Applicants representative further advised the Board that the Applicant was requesting a supplemental time variance from the Board to present its plans to Providences Fire Prevention Division.  Finally, the Applicant requested a clarification of the Boards Decision in light of certain cited testimony of the Providence Fire Prevention Division during the Licensing Board proceedings.
	The subject facility has been previously before the Board on several occasions.  As reported in the Amended Decision in File Number 050167, a hearing to review the fire code deficiencies in the subject facility, was originally scheduled for May 2, 2006 and the  original Decision was issued on August 28, 2006.
	The original application for variance in this matter had been filed by the business owner of the Big Bar.  However, by the original hearing date, the Big Bar was no longer a tenant in the building and the Providence Fire Marshals Office advised the Board staff that notice of that hearing should be sent to the Building Owner.  At the time of the original hearing a new business, Shobar LLC, occupied this facility.
	During the May 2, 2006 hearing, the Board reviewed the first twelve deficiencies listed on a March 11, 2005 inspection report with the representatives of the new business owner, Shobar LLC, who was currently occupying the facility.  A written Decision, outlining the original plan of action for this facility, was thereupon mailed on August 28, 2006.  However, upon issuance of the original Decision, the Board was notified by the Owners representative that the Owner had been listed as the Applicant on the original Decision in error and that the building Owner had neither applied for the requ3ested relief nor wished to utilize the relief granted in the Decision.
	In light of the above, and pursuant to Board rule 6-2-12, the parties in interest were advised that the Board would review this matter on October 24, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, the Board was advised that neither the Building Owner, nor the building occupant (owner of the Shobar business), wished to assume the responsibility, benefits and/or liability of the original Decision in File Number 050167.  Accordingly, the Board determined that the Decision rendered in File Number 050167 should be voided in fairness to all parties.  Accordingly, the Amended Decision, mailed on October 27, 2006, voided the original Decision in File Number 050167.
	The facility was thereupon re-inspected by the Providence Fire Marshals Office on November 2, 2006 and an updated inspection report, dated November 7, 2006 was sent, by certified mail, to both the current business owner (the current Applicant) and the Building Owner.  The current Applicant, Shobar, thereupon submitted a new variance application to the Board on November 30, 2006.  Pursuant to Board Rule 6-2.3, the case was assigned to be heard, as an expedited hearing, on December 5, 2006.  However, at that time, the Owners representative appeared and advised the Board that he had insufficient notice of the hearing.  Accordingly, the Board postponed the hearing for one week and advised both parties, on the record, that the new de novo hearing, covering this facility, would commence at 1:00 P.M. on December 12, 2006.
	During the December 12, 2006 de novo hearing on this matter, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Preiss and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Fournier of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined in File Nos. 060942 and 060942-Corrected.  The motion was unanimous.
	The original Decision was sent to the parties on December 22, 2006.  The Applicant thereupon requested Board clarification and/or correction of Item 1.  Upon review of the record, the following clarification was noted.  The January 12, 2007 deadline was only for submission of sprinkler system plans and the Applicant would have until the March 31, 2007 deadline to bring this sprinkler system into full compliance.  Accordingly, Item 1 of the original Decision is corrected as follows:
The Board hereby grants a time variance, until January 12, 2007, at which time the Applicant is directed to present the Providence Fire Marshals Office with approved plans for the installation of a full sprinkler system in this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office, in accordance with the provisions of section 23-28.6-22(b).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance, until March 31, 2007, to bring this sprinkler system into full operation by connecting the approved newly-installed sprinkler system to the municipal water supply.  (Please see Item 15 below  addressing the issue of suitable separation.)

The timelines assigned to the remainder of the directives within the original Decision remained the same.
	During the February 6, 2007 expedited hearing on this matter, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame, and Commissioners Newbrook, Preiss, Pearson, and Filippi were present.  Commissioner OConnell recused himself from consideration of this case.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Pearson to continue the case until full compliance was reported by the Providence Fire Marshal and to deny the requested time variance based upon the lack of documentation submitted to the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The motion was unanimous. 

FINDINGS OF FACT
	By way of background, and based upon administrative notice of its original findings of facts, the Board finds that this facility currently maintains an Assembly occupancy located on the First Floor of a three-story building with a partial basement.  The Board further finds that the current Shobar LLC operation was properly inspected under the Assembly sub-occupancy of nightclub.  The Board further finds that the Shobar LLC nightclub is a Class C Place of Assembly.  The Board further finds that there are two remote means of egress in the Assembly occupancy and that both exits discharge onto Clemence Street.  The Board further finds that the basement has one means of egress and is utilized for storage and utilities.  The Board further finds that there are currently four apartment units located on the second and third floors of this building.
	The Board further finds that the building is protected with battery operated emergency lighting and a municipally connected fire alarm system.  The Board finds that the Providence Fire Marshal believes this building to be of NFPA Type III (200) ordinary construction.  Further, the Board finds that the posted maximum occupancy of the current Shobar LLC nightclub occupancy is 215 persons.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant and the Building Owner are not in agreement as to who is contractually responsible to pay for the required fire safety upgrades to this facility.  However, the Board finds that both the Applicant and the Building Owner are potentially subject to the provisions of RIGL 23028.3-9 which specifically covers any building owner or lessee and potentially subjects the parties to fines and/or imprisonment.
	The Board further finds that a majority of the nightclub occupancies in the City of Providence have either a fully operational sprinkler system or have installed approved sprinkler piping and are simply awaiting the Providence Water Supply Boards approval to connect the sprinkler systems to the public water supply.  The Board finds that the Applicant has not installed approved sprinkler piping and, as of the February 6, 2007 hearing, has not submitted, as directed, to the Providence Fire Marshals Office, plans for the installation of a full sprinkler system.
	Upon review of the record during the February 6, 2007 hearing, the Board finds that the Applicant has admitted that it did not comply with Item 1 of both the original and amended Decisions (File No. 060942 & File No. 060942 Corrected).  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant did not comply with Item 1 within the stated time frame.
	The Board further finds that in items 2 and 3, of both Decisions, the Applicant was not only directed to correct the cited deficiency within a certain time period but was further specifically directed to provide the Providence Fire Marshals Office with documentation confirming the correction.  The Board notes that the above documentation would have to be official documents from independent third parties, such as licensed fire alarm contractors and/or electricians, as opposed to written documentation from an interested party such as the Applicant.  The Board finds that,  as of the date of the February 6, 2007 hearing, the Applicant had not provided the Providence Fire Marshals Office with such documentation.  Accordingly, the board finds that the Applicant did not fully comply with the Boards directives in items 2 and 3.
	The Board further finds that item 5 was to be done at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  However, it appears that the Applicant attempted to address this issue independently of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  Again, this is contrary to the directives of the Board.
	Finally, the Board finds that both Decisions (File No. 060942 & file No. 060942 Corrected) specifically provide that 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).  Accordingly, the Board finds that its original Decision has been voided.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	 The Board hereby denies the Applicants requested supplemental time variance to present its plans to Providences Fire Prevention Division.  In denying this request, the Board notes that RIGL 23-28.6-21 required the installation of a full sprinkler system in this facility on or before July 1, 2006.  The Board further notes that its original extension of the above deadline for this Applicant was voided when the Applicant failed to fully comply with the Board directives as outlined above.  The Board further notes, unlike the majority of nightclub occupancies in the City of Providence, that have submitted plans and actually installed sprinkler systems, the Applicant currently has no such protection for its patrons.  Finally, the Board notes that even if the sprinkler system plan review for this facility were expedited, it is now highly unlikely that the Applicant could physically provide this building with a fully operational and approved sprinkler system by March 31, 2007.
2.	The Applicant has advised the Board that during the January 29, 2007 renewal hearing before the Providence board of Licenses, the Board of Licenses found that the Providence Fire Department feels that there is a public safety issue with reference to patrons attending this establishment which is lacking a sprinkler system and not conforming to a State Fire Code Appeals Board ruling.  With regard to the Applicants requested Clarification, the Board notes that it was apparent to the Providence Fire Marshals Office that, by January 29, 2007, the Applicant had failed to comply with several directives of the Board.  As outlined above, the Board is in agreement with the position taken by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The majority of nightclub patrons in the City of Providence are currently protected by sprinkler systems.  A small number of nightclubs have sprinkler systems installed and are only awaiting their final connection to the public water supply.  However, the Applicant has not even had his plans reviewed and approved.  Accordingly, the Providence Fire Marshals remarks and the referenced findings of the Providence Board of Licenses, are deemed by the Board to be consistent with the Boards Decision.

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)].