The above-captioned case was originally heard by the Board on July 2, 2002 at 1:00 PM.  A Decision, outlining a plan of action for this facility, was thereupon issued on October 23, 2002.  The Applicant has come before the Board requesting an additional extension of time in order to bring this facility into full compliance with the above decision.  Specifically, by letter dated March 24, 2003, the Applicant requested a time extension along with the Executive Director of Facilities Management for Roger Williams University.

The Applicant’s request for a time extension was heard by the Board on April 8, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Burlingame, Richard, Evans, Filippi and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board hereby adopts its Decision of file number 020137 as its preliminary findings of fact in this matter.  The Board further finds that the Applicant was unable to comply with deficiency 1 as a result of a very harsh winter.  Specifically, the Applicant was directed to provide a metal grate over a combustible roof to the stairs leading to the ground of this facility.  The Applicant has requested additional time in order to complete this metal grate and tie it to the structure.  The State Fire Marshal’s representative appeared and asked the Board to limit the time to approximately 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 30 days from the date of this Decision in order to bring this facility into full compliance with its Decision in file number 020137.
 
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)].

Decision was mailed on 7-30-03.