The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson, Jasparro, Pearson and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Michalczyk of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Commissioner Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioners Burlingame and Blackburn.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the April 3, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by the Providence Fire Marshals Office that the Applicants Hibachi Table/Grill system had no overhead suppression but had approved ductwork installed in the floor below.  The Board was further advised and finds that the grill itself is UL listed.  The Board finds that the grill is located in the facility with a fire alarm system but without sprinkler coverage.  Finally, the Applicants representative has advised the Board that two other facilities in Rhode Island currently maintain the proposed Hibachi Table/Grill.  In light of the above, it was determined that the Applicant should provide the Providence Fire Marshals Office with additional information and allow the parties to return with either approval or a recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby tables the above captioned case in order to allow the Applicant to provide the Providence Fire Marshals Office with an opportunity to further investigate this case and determine whether to approve the proposed system outright or to return to the Board with a specific recommendation as to the Providence Fire Marshals position on the variance request.

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)].