The above-captioned case was most recently heard by the Board on March 3, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Pearson, Jasparro, Dias and Preiss were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Bellamy of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Dias 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 both an October 23, 2006 inspection report compiled by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office along with a February 27, 2009 plan of action submitted by the Applicant.  Both the above report and plan of action were utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshals Office during the March 3, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates both the October 23, 2006 inspection report and the February 27, 2009 plan of action 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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 15.2.1.2 and 15.2.1.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing conditions in conjunction with the newly proposed sprinkler system for this facility.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 15.2.1.2 and 15.2.1.4 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing conditions on the basis of structural hardship in light of the Applicants plan to provide sprinkler coverage to this facility.
	3.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance to complete the installation of the fire alarm system on or before September of 2010 and to complete the installation of the proposed sprinkler system on or before September of 2011 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	4.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 4 by removing the cited louver and in-filling the void to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's office.  Specifically, the East Providence Fire Marshal's office may approve the existing modified doors as being in compliance.  This variance is further granted pursuant to the Applicants plan to provide sprinkler coverage within this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's office on or before September 2011.
	5.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 5 by sealing off the cited louvers in order to provide the janitor closet doors with approved smoke barrier protection at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal's office.  The Board further notes that this area shall be sprinklered as part of the Applicants plan of action, on or before September 2011.
	6.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 6 by removing the cited stove at the direction, to the satisfaction and within a timetable established by the East Providence Fire Marshal's office.  The Board notes that the stove is no longer required and that food preparation is maintained by the use of a microwave oven, and that power to the stove will be terminated by the Applicant.
	7-13.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as outlined in both the October 23, 2006 inspection report and the February 27, 2009 plan of action.

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)].