The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 9, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Preiss, Walker, Jasparro, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Richard 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 December 18, 2008 inspection report which was subsequently modified by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office on February 25, 2009.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the November 9, 2010 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 18, 2008 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, 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 or his or her designee.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 7.1.10.1 in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the cited second means of egress from the storage area of this facility.  In granting this variance on the basis of structural hardship, the Board directs the Applicant to protect the area in question with either padding or to provide approved signage, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.8.9.6.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to provide the commercial cooking facilities within this building with only a horn or visual device as opposed to a local fire alarm system.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that this facility is utilized only six (6) months per year and is approximately 12x30 in total area.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 13.7.1.3 and 9.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing hood and duct system in the cooking area of this facility and to provide the existing hood and duct system with an ansul system installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office prior to the re-opening of this facility in May of 2011.

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)].