The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 5, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Walker, Pearson, Sylvester, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bruce Rice and Christopher Hiener of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 4, 2012 inspection report compiled by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office during the June 5, 2012 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 4, 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.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing hood system covering the cooking equipment of this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the cooking equipment is utilized only approximately ten (10) times a year and that the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office has no objection to the relief.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide an approved K-type fire extinguisher in the vicinity of the cooking equipment, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The Board notes that the stove top knobs have been removed.
	3.  During the June 5, 2012 hearing on this matter, the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office recommended that the Applicant be allowed to utilize an approved interconnected system of 110 smoke detectors with a heat detector in the kitchen, in lieu of a local fire alarm system within this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to utilize the above smoke and heat detection system in lieu of a local fire alarm system.  In granting this relief, the Board directs that the Applicant shall not utilize the first and second floors of this facility at the same time, and that the Applicant shall provide any additional safeguards deemed necessary by the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.
	4.  It is the understanding of the Board that deficiency 4 is moot in the absence of a fire alarm system.
	5.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in which to submit a plan of action to the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office for rendering the cited materials flame resistant.  The Board grants the Applicant an additional 150 days to implement the above plan of action, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.
	6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 6.
	7.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiency 7 by increasing the width of the cited door to thirty-six (36) inches, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional 150 days in order to implement the above plan of action.  The Board notes that the Applicant shall not be required to increase the height of this door, in light of the parties presentation that this would be a structural hardship.
	8.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited headroom of the stairways with approved signage, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.
	9, 11, 12.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 9, 11 and 12 to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The Board notes that there is no item 10 listed on the May 4, 2012 inspection report.

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)].