The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 8, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Walker, Sylvester and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael Macaruso of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond in sequence with those of a March 7, 2012 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the May 8, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 7, 2012 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.  (12-112-VN).  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant not to provide the cited commercial stove with approved fire suppression equipment, in light of the limited use of this equipment.  Specifically, the Applicant has advised the Board that he does not use the grill at all, and that the stove itself is used only three or four times annually.  This relief was further based upon the fact that the Applicant is only utilizing the stove to heat up certain food items or to boil water, therefore the stove does not generate grease laden vapor during its limited use.  In light of the limited events and the fact that the stove does not generate grease laden vapors, the State Fire Marshals Office had no objection.
	2-3.  (12-113-VN and 12-114-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 2 and 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	4.  (12-115-VN).  During the May 8, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant only utilized the indoor assembly area during its opening in April of each year.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize approved domestically supplied sprinkler heads over the boiler in lieu of the one-hour separation from the boiler to the assembly area.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the State Fire Marshals Office would be in support of this relief.
	5-6.  (12-116-VN and 12-117-VN).  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 5 and 6 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
	7.  (12-105-VN).  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in which to develop and submit a plan of action to the State Fire Marshals Office for the installation of an approved local fire alarm system within this facility.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in order to implement the above plan by installing the local fire alarm system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.  Finally, the Board notes that the State Fire Marshals Office has been provided the authority to extend either or both of the above timelines for good faith efforts being shown by the Applicant.

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)].