The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on June 24, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, pursuant to a recommendation by the Providence Fire Marshals Office, this case was assigned for an onsite review by a subcommittee of the Board.  During the June 24, 2003 hearing, the Applicant was directed to work with the Providence Fire Marshals Office in correcting as many deficiencies as possible before the onsite visit.  The Applicants Attorney advised the Board that the Applicant would also explore the possibility of financing a sprinkler and fire alarm system for this facility.
	The onsite subcommittee review was conducted on July 22, 2003 at 10:00 A.M. and the parties reappeared before the full Board, later that day, at 1:00 P.M.  During the July 22, 2003 follow-up Board hearing, the subcommittee recommended that the Applicant immediately provide this facility with full coverage smoke detection at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The subcommittee further recommended that the Applicant immediately upgrade and properly maintain the exit sign, emergency lighting and fire extinguisher coverage in this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The subcommittee further recommended that the Applicant immediately provide approved signage on each of the exit doors leading into the enclosed stairways of this facility.  The Board approved the above preliminary recommendations of the subcommittee and the Applicant agreed to comply with the recommendations.  Finally, the Applicant was directed to return to the Board in two (2) weeks with a full plan of action for the fire safety of this facility that would include the installation of both a fire alarm and sprinkler system.
	The Applicants Attorney returned to the Board, two weeks later, on August 5, 2003.  At that time, the Board was advised that the Applicant had upgraded the smoke detector system, exit signs and emergency lighting system.  The Board was further advised that the requested door-mounted exit signage had been ordered by the Applicant.  Finally, the Applicant requested an additional thirty (30) days to secure a financing commitment for the sprinkler and fire alarm components of the plan of action for fire safety.
	During the August 5, 2003 hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant an additional thirty (30) days for the Applicant to secure financing for the major components of the fire safety program for this facility.  The motion was unanimous.
	The hearing was thereupon rescheduled to September 9, 2003, the first hearing date after the thirty (30) day extension.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Coutu, Filippi and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Silva of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicants Attorney advised the Board that, at that time, they did not have a commitment from any of the financial institutions they had contacted to finance the proposed fire safety program for this facility.
	An initial motion, to limit the occupancy of this building to only the first floor, and remove all flammable and combustible materials from the carpenter shop and other areas of basement, was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame.  The motion failed.
	In light of the fact that the Providence Fire Marshals Office had previously suggested the abatement of this facility, a second motion, to recommend that the Providence Fire Marshal now review the suggested abatement of this facility with the State Fire Marshal, was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook.  The motion passed with Commissioner Wahlberg abstaining.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this building was built in approximately 1900.  The Board further finds that the basement and floors one, two and three are each approximately 1,728 gross square feet.  The fourth floor is approximately 1,200 gross square feet.  There is also a non-habitable attic space.  The Board further finds that the basement contains an active carpenter shop, an apartment that the Applicant has discontinued renting, and two unenclosed furnaces with oil tanks.  The Board further finds that the carpenter shop contains both flammable and combustible materials.  The Board finds that the first floor has three apartments, a print shop and a food storage facility.  The fire marshal has advised, and the Board finds, that the storage facility contains combustible materials.  The Board further finds that the means of egress from the above areas would not be considered approved.
	The Board further finds that the second floor has eight individual rooms, an efficiency apartment and two (2) common bathrooms.  The egress from the second floor is through two, non-remote stairways that would not be considered approved.  The Board further finds that the third floor contains the same floor plan and egress system as the second floor.
	The Board finds that the fourth floor is currently not occupied and contains combustible debris.  The Board further finds that this facility contains limited, domestically-supplied sprinkler heads and hardwired smoke detectors.  The Board finds that neither system has been properly maintained under the code.  The Board further finds that the facility has never been provided with an approved municipally-connected fire alarm system or an approved NFPA 13 sprinkler system.  Further, the Board notes that there have been at least three (3) small fires reported at this facility.  Finally, during the onsite review of this facility, the subcommittee noted at least one occupant who may not have been fully capable of self-preservation in the event of an active fire.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board notes that over the last few months, the Applicant, his Attorney and the Providence Fire Marshals Office have identified the need for a full sprinkler system and municipally connected fire alarm system as the key components of a plan of action for the fire safety of this facility.  In the absence of these active fire protection systems, the Board would be unable, in good conscience, to consider granting relief on the passive fire protection or structural deficiencies in this building.
	The Board notes that the costs of these active fire protection systems would greatly exceed the funds the Applicant has suggested that he is able to commit to this project.  The Board believes that the Applicant and his Attorney have made a good faith effort to secure the outside financing.  However, in the absence of an actual outside financing commitment, it does not appear that the approved sprinkler and fire alarm systems will be installed in a timely manner.  In the continued absence of these active fire protection systems, the occupants may be considered at risk.  Accordingly, in the continued absence of these active fire protection systems, the Board is unable to grant the Applicant the requested relief at this time and therefore recommends that the Providence Fire Marshals Office now review the suggested abatement of this facility with the State Fire Marshal.  

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)].