The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 12, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, Coutu, Richard, Evans, Filippi and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Jobin of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
This matter was originally before the Board on November 23, 1999.  A decision, outlining a plan of action for the fire safety this facility was mailed on January 21, 2000.  There was no Appeal taken of this decision.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates its findings of fact in the original decision as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The only additional facts presented were that the fire alarm system had been installed and that the Applicant sought additional time in which to install the required 20 minute doors with closures.  The Board notes that over a year has passed since the Applicant was originally directed to provide this facility with approved 20 minute doors and closures.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.		
	
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. The Board hereby amends items 4(b) and 4(c) of its original decision in File No. 990198A in order to allow the Applicant to provide the cited existing door jambs with approved solid core wood doors having an approximate fire rating of 20 minutes, equipped with approved spring hinges, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this decision.  The Board further notes that the Applicant has had over a year to correct this deficiency. Accordingly, there shall be no extension of this amended deadline.

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)].

This decision was mailed on 1-04-01.