The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 7, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, a subcommittee of the Board consisting of Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Newbrook and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Moise, Fournier and Silva of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to recommend the plan of action outlined herein to the full Board.  This matter was subsequently reviewed by the Board and approved on June 14, 2005.  

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a November 3, 2004 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 June 7, 2005 subcommittee hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 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 this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal”.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #1 by providing the kitchen of this facility with an approved K class fire extinguisher.
	
2.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #2 by providing the solid fuel cooking appliances of this facility with either approved spark arrestors, wider grates or a similar product designed to arrest sparks, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  Specifically, the Providence Fire Marshal’s office shall have discretion as to how this deficiency shall be corrected by the Applicant and, accordingly, the Applicant shall not be brought into strict compliance with NFPA 96, section 14.8.4.
	
3.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #3 by cleaning the cited cooking and ventilation system at least twice a year to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office.  In the event that the system is not cleaned to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to hire a professional contractor and clean the system in strict accordance with the provisions of NFPA 96.  
	
4.  During the June 7, 2005 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the fire suppression system installed on the solid fuel cooking unit was required in 1987 however it is not currently required.  Accordingly, the Board directs the Applicant to either maintain the non-compliant system or provide it with an “Out Of Service” tag advising all parties that the system is not functional.
	
5-10.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiencies 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s office within 120 days of the date of this decision.  With regard to item #8, the Board notes that the Applicant has an approved local fire alarm system covering the first floor and basement of this facility and that he needs heat detection on the second floor.  Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to extend the fire alarm system with heat detection to the second floor within the above 120 day period.
 

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)].