The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 5, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  
At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Filippi and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Daniel Isles of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Wahlberg to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a February 10, 2003 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the August 5, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the February 10, 2003 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein. 
	
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, is defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1 – 65.  During the August 5, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant would bring this facility into full compliance with the code by correcting all of the deficiencies 1 through 65 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  The Applicant requested additional time in order to bring the facility into compliance.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance of ninety days from the date of this decision in which this facility is to be brought into full compliance with the State Fire Code.  While the facility is being brought up to code, the Board directs that the Applicant maintain a fire watch with telephone access during all hours of occupancy.  Pursuant to the recommendation of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office, there shall be no more time extensions granted to this project.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].