The above-captioned case was originally reviewed by the Board in the context of a phased plan of action, by the University of Rhode Island, for the installation of sprinkler coverage in nineteen (19) residential halls on the Applicants Kingston Campus. In a Decision dated March 24, 2006, the Board granted a phased time variance, for the installation of sprinkler coverage in all of the subject dormitories.  The March 24, 2006 Decision established a September 2008 deadline for the installation of sprinkler coverage in the Adams Hall Dormitory located at 2 Butterfield Road.
	The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on May 11, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Preiss, Jasparro, Walker, Filippi, Dias and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief Deputy State Fire Marshal DiMascolo and Deputy State Fire Marshals Moore and Foley of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioner Jasparro 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 040209 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further finds that, as outlined in the original Decision, the subject dormitory was directed to have its fire alarm system upgraded and a full sprinkler system installed by September of 2008.  The Board finds that the Original Applicant in this case was the former director of safety and risk management.  The Board finds that, if the above deadline was not met, the Original Applicant was directed to either not re-occupy the dormitory or to return to the Board with a plan of action approved by the State and Kingston Fire Marshals Office.  The Board finds that it was the understanding of the University that the Original Applicant had requested and received additional time, until September of 2010, to install the sprinkler system in this facility.  However, the Board finds that this request was neither made by, nor granted to, the Original Applicant. 
	The Board finds that the current Applicant has sought to immediately rectify this situation by formally requesting the original time extension.  The Board has also been advised, and recognizes, that the current Applicant may have to return to request additional time due to potential delays in the design, bidding and plan review process and the fact that these renovations are generally conducted when a building is unoccupied. However, the Board certainly appreciates the Applicants substantial efforts in attempting to comply with the September 2010 deadlines. 
	Finally, the Board has been advised and finds that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility, including the upgrades of the fire alarm system, have been successfully completed by the Applicant.  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 this code, or as approved in particular by the state fire marshal or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby extends the original September 2008 deadline, for the installation of complete sprinkle coverage in the above-captioned dormitory, to September of 2010.  As a condition of this variance, the Board requests the parties to return in thirty (30) days to provide it with an updated status report.  This relief is granted pursuant to the Boards understanding that the Original Applicant had apparently not followed through in requesting additional time prior to his departure from the University. Finally, the Board commends the current Applicant, along with the State and Kingston Fire Marshals Offices, for their efforts in ensuring that the residents of this last dormitory will be protected with full sprinkler coverage as soon as possible.  

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)].