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
	During the June 14, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this facility had been inspected under a previous edition of the code and that a new inspection of the facility would be required in order to determine whether or not it remained in violation of the state fire code.  Accordingly, the Board determined that the best course of action would be to close this file and to remand the case to the North Providence Fire Marshal's office for a new inspection of the facility.  The Board notes that many of the deficiencies outlined in the original inspection report may not be violations of the code upon re-inspection under the new provisions of the code.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby closes this file and remands the case to the North Providence Fire Marshal's office in order to conduct an inspection under the provisions of the current RI Life Safety code applicable to this facility.  In closing this particular file, the Board notes that all of the variance requests outlined herein are moot with adoption of the latest fire code.  Accordingly, if upon re-inspection the Applicant wishes to re-apply to the Board, he shall be free to do so.

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)].