The above captioned case was heard by a subcommittee of the Board on February l2, 2002 at l:00 p.m.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Coutu, Fang and Filippi were present. The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Edward Donahue of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion to recommend the subcommittee’s findings to the full Board was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Fang.  The motion was unanimous.

	This matter was subsequently reviewed by the full Board on February l9, 2002.  At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, O’Connell, Filippi, Fang and Burlingame were present.  A motion was thereupon made by Commissioner Burlingame to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation.  The motion was unanimous. 
	
FINDING OF FACT

The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of January l6, 2002 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal during the February 12, 2002 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the January l6, 2002 plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s findings such as correction of a deficiency 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 defined in Section 23-28.l-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #l at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal before occupancy.

2.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal before occupancy.

3.	The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal before occupancy.

4.	During the February l2, 2002 subcommittee hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that this facility is equipped with three (3) ventilation ducts for the ventilation of commercial cooking units.  The vertical portion of the ventilation ducts are not large enough to permit personnel access and all are three (3) stories in height.  All are provided with openings to permit cleaning at the top and the bottom of the riser only.  The Board was further advised and finds that the requested ten- (l0) foot clean-outs could only be accessed either by apartments within this complex or by penetrating a two- (2) hour stair tower.  Neither of these options comes with its own set hazards.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has a written contract with a specialized maintenance company that has the ability and will so state that these shafts can be cleaned and maintained on a regular basis.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 96, Section 4-3.4.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain clean outs for the cited three (3) ventilation ducts at both the top and bottom of such ducts.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office with a written contract from a specialized maintenance company outlining the method by which the shaft shall be maintained and cleaned and further documentation from the company that they in fact can successfully clean these shafts given their current condition.  Finally, the Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office did not support the Applicant’s request for variance, but left it to the Board to decide whether a variance should be granted.

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.

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.  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.  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 changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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.

	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.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)]