The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on March 18, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, the Board developed a plan of action for the fire safety of this facility.  The above-captioned case was most recently rescheduled for hearing on December 30, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Priess, Newbrook, Filippi and Evans were present.  Chairman Farrell and Vice Chairman Richard recused themselves from this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Joseph Michalezyk of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Evans to grant the Applicant relief as outline herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby incorporates its original findings of facts in file number 030052 as its initial findings of fact in this case. The Board further finds that, as of the date of the December 30, 2003 hearing, the Applicant had failed to provide this facility with a functioning approved sprinkler system and an approved fire alarm system. By a written Decision dated June 11, 2003, the Applicant was directed to provide the sprinkler system within 120 days, and fire alarm system within 60 days, of June 11, 2003.  Accordingly, in the absence of an approved sprinkler and an approved municipally connected fire alarm system, the Board finds that the Applicant has failed to fully comply with its original Decision.  
	The Board finds that the original Decision also directed the Applicant not to occupy the second level of this family unless he first provided this provided this facility with a uniformed fire fighter on duty.  In original Decision, the Board noted that the occupancy of the seconded floor would be limited to 100 people and that the firefighter was necessary enforce this restriction and to direct the Applicant to correct any other problems and / or hazards noted by the firefighter. However, the Board finds that most important function of the firefighter on duty is to provide a direct radio connection with the fire department in the event of a fire or other emergency and to further assist in the initial fire suppression and the rapid evacuation of the building.  This is critical in the absence of a municipally connected fire alarm system.
	During the December 30, 2003, hearing on this matter, the Applicant requested to be allowed to operate under the original decision for an additional two week period.  The Providence Fire Marshals Office objected to this request due to the Applicants failure to comply with the original time variances granted by the Board.  The Providence Fire Marshals Office also advised the Board that a second factor for not wanting to provide a firefighter on duty was the shooting that had occurred at this facility.  In light of the above, the Board finds that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has a legitimate concern for physical safety of the firefighter assigned to this facility.  Accordingly, the Board will not direct the Providence Fire Marshal to assign any further detail to this facility.  Firefighters may only be assigned to this facility once the Providence Fire Marshal is personally satisfied that the Applicant has made all necessary arrangements for the security of the firefighters assigned this detail. 

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby conditionally grants the Applicants request to extend the original Decision for a period of fourteen days from December 30, 2003.  However, in accordance with the original Decision, the Applicant may only occupy the second level of this facility if he is able to secure a firefighter on duty from the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The firefight shall only be provided if the Providence Fire Marsha is personally satisfied that the Applicant has made all necessary arrangements for the security of the firefighters assigned this detail.  Providing a firefighter, a thereby allowing the second floor to be occupied during this period, shall be completely within the discretion of the Providence Fire Marshal.  If no firefighter is provided by the Providence Fire Marshal, the seconded level of this facility shall not be occupied.

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)].