The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 30, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, O’Connell, Filippi, Burlingame and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Hawthorne of the Cranston Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During the November 30, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this facility was previously inspected by the Cranston Fire Marshal’s office on June 3, 2003.  At that time all of the deficiencies contained in the inspection report were corrected.  During a follow up on-site visit addressing the Ansul system in the lower kitchen, the Cranston Fire Marshal’s office discovered the new issue.  Specifically, the hood and duct system is located beneath an egress stair from the upper level, and the hood is constructed of galvanized sheet metal with pop-rivet seams.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing location of the stove within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the stairway over the stove is of steel construction with concrete filled treads.  The Board further directs the Applicant to provide a 5/8 inch fire rated sheet rock shield underneath the stairs to protect the steel.  In granting this relief it is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct all other deficiencies including the upgrading of the hood and duct system to a stainless steel system with liquid tight welds and conforming grease traps.

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)].