The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing by a subcommittee of the Board on June 14, 2006 at 9:00 A.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Burlingame, Blackburn and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael DeMello of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The subcommittee recommendation was reviewed by the full Board on June 20, 2006 and approved pursuant to a motion made by Commissioner Pearson and a second by Commissioner Newbrook.  Accordingly, the subcommittee recommendation now has the status of a full Board decision.  

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 3, 2004 inspection report compiled by the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Providence Fire Marshals Office during the June 14, 2006 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 3, 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.  During the June 14, 2006 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this facility is less than ten thousand square feet per floor and under three stories in height.  The Board was further advised and finds that the alarm system installed within this facility approximately nine to ten years ago had been approved by the North Providence Fire Marshal's office and possibly conforms to the 2000 edition of the Fire Alarm Code.  Therefore, it appears to the Board that the fire alarm system of this facility is in substantial compliance with the fire code.  Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to review the existing system with the North Providence Fire Marshal's office and, if necessary, make any minor modifications to the system as determined by that office.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision to modify the system if so deemed necessary by the North Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	2-5.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiencies 2, 3, 4 and 5 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	6.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing travel distance within this facility and to allow the Applicant to provide a new second means of egress from this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the  North Providence Fire Marshals office.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a 120 day period, from the date of this decision, in which to make the above corrections.
	7-8.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance, of 120 days from the date of this decision, in order to correct deficiencies 7 and 8 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	9.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 37.2.5.8 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing configuration of the check-out stand which does not require the occupants to funnel through, but allows them rather to pass by this area on the way to the exit discharge.
	10-14.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiencies 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North 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 subcommittees recommendation to the full Board, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by requesting such review in writing in accordance with the provisions of RIGL 23-28.3-5(b)4.  Commencement of such an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].