The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 16, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Newbrook, Burlingame, Evans, Coutu, Preiss and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Kenneth Scandariato of the North Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  An initial motion in this case was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Preiss.  However, the Applicant was unable to secure a quorum in favor of the requested relief.  Accordingly, the Board granted the Applicant a period of 120 days to comply or to return within thirty (30) days with a different proposal.  

Upon consultation with the North Providence Fire Marshal’s office, the Applicant returned and requested reconsideration.  A motion was thereupon made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Preiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 3, 2004 inspection report compiled by the North Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the November 16, 2004 hearing on this matter.  

Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 3, 2004 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 understood to mean “in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal.)”

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant an option of either removing the fryolater and shutting off the gas to the stove or maintaining the existing hood and adding a suppression system to it.  If the hood has a new suppression system, the Applicant may then move the fryolater unit under the suppression system in a manner deemed safe by the North Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  Finally, as a condition of this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to eliminate all of the combustible material that comes in contact with the existing hood system and its ducts and to further maintain a cleaning contract with a company that services hood and duct systems.  The relief outlined above is limited to this particular owner, and if this establishment is sold, the Board directs that the system shall be upgraded in compliance with the code prior to re-occupancy of this facility by a new owner.
	
2.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #2 by providing this facility with approved fire extinguishers, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal’s office, and within a timetable established by that office.
	
3.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #3 by providing this facility with approved egress illumination, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal’s office, and within a timetable established by that office.
	
4.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #4, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshal’s office, and within a timetable established by that office.

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)].