The above-captioned cases were originally heard by the Board on July 22, 2003 and a decision was mailed on August 7, 2003.  The Applicant returned to the Board on September 30, 2003 and a follow-up Decision was mailed on December 19, 2003.  The December Decision granted the Applicant a time variance, until January 30, 2004, to develop and submit an approved plan of action to the Fire Board.  The Applicants plan of action was submitted and reviewed by the Board on January 13, 2004.  The Board thereupon accepted the Applicants plan of action and granted the requested relief based upon the Applicants agreement to provide the above facilities with additional fire safeguards in accordance with the Applicants plan.  The Applicant has initiated its plan of action and presented a progress report to the Board on July 20, 2004.
	At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Lisa Krapf of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
	A two-page progress report, prepared by the Dimeo Construction Company, was submitted, reviewed by and approved by the Board.  This report is attached to this Decision.  Accordingly, it is incorporated herein by reference as part of this Decision.
	The Board further directed the Applicant to provide the Providence Fire Marshal with a letter, outlining a plan of action relating to the emergency generators within the above schools, within fourteen (14) days.  Specifically, the Applicant shall advise the Providence Fire Marshal as to how he will maintain the generators in full operational condition and test them on a weekly basis.  Further, there shall be an established chain of command, for the reporting and correction of any problems with the generators.  Finally, all generators, supplying emergency shelters, shall be maintained in full operational condition at all times.  In the event of system failure, the emergency shelters shall be immediately provided with alternative emergency power until the failed systems are repaired or replaced by the Applicant.

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)].