The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 23, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Jackson, Pearson, Richard, Jasparro, Preiss, Walker, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Richard Fournier and Timothy Lutz of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioners Filippi and Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 13, 2009 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the June 23, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 13, 2009 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards 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, shall be 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, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance until December 31, 2009 in which to correct deficiency 1 by upgrading the fire alarm system of this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  The Board further grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.10.4.3.4 in order to allow the Applicant not to provide the physical fire command central room in this existing building but to allow the control functions to be located in the main lobby to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection due to structural hardship.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.
	3.  During the June 23, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant has corrected the majority of the items listed in deficiency 3.  However, upon inspection of this facility, the Applicants engineer determined that the Applicant would not be able to comply with the access panel requirement in this existing kitchen exhaust duct.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the access panel requirement in order to allow the Applicant to utilize an approved high-pressure spray wash system or similar technology, approved by the Providence Fire Marshal, that can be inserted into the vertical duct and used to clean the vertical duct work in lieu of providing access panels for manual cleaning in accordance with NFPA 96, 2001, section 1.5.  
	The Board further grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 96, 2001 section 7.1.4 in order to allow the Applicant to be permitted to install a drain outlet on the horizontal duct work at the base of the vertical duct work for the discharge of water from the high pressure spray cleaning process.
	4.  In light of the above plan of action and the time variances granted, it is the understanding of the Board that the University requests that this facility be deemed in compliance with the fire code and as such, that the Providence Fire Department shall have the authority to approve the transfer of licenses associated with the sale of the restaurant.  The Providence Fire Marshal's office had no objection to this request.  Therefore, the Board shall grant the Providence Fire Marshal's office the authority to deem this building to be in compliance for the purposes of transferring the licenses associated with the sale of the restaurant.

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 Applicants 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 Boards 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 Boards 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)].