The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on November 9, 2010 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, the Board granted a series of variances which are outlined in its original decision in file number 090117.  In January of 2012, both the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office requested that this decision be reopened for additional time and for clarification.  Accordingly, the above captioned case was scheduled for review by the Board on March 6, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Jasparro, Jackson, Sylvester, Burlingame and Blackburn 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 Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Dias to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact as outlined in its decision in file number 090117.  In addition, the Board finds that the Applicant was previously allowed to maintain his existing hood and exhaust system within this facility.  However, the Board finds that the Applicant was directed to provide the existing hood and duct system with an approved suppression system, acceptable to the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The Board finds that one of the options identified by a Commissioner during the original hearing was the possibility of utilizing a residential suppression system.  However, the Board finds that the Union Fire District Fire Marshal has been advised that a residential system would not protect the hazard of Fryolaters within this facility.  The Board finds that the Applicant currently maintains a small fifteen-pound Fryolater and that this Fryolater will need sufficient protection.  However, the Board finds that the required protection may be met by less than a full and complete commercial system for this facility. 
	The Board finds that the Applicant and the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office have been working closely together to resolve this issue and that further clarification would be necessary in order for them to fully proceed.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby reaffirms its original item 1 in file number 090117.  
	2.  The Board hereby reaffirms its original variance granted in file number 090117.
	3.  As noted in the original hearing in this matter, the Board finds that deficiency 3 has been corrected to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.
	4.  The Board hereby reaffirms its original variance from the provisions of sections 13.7.1.3 and 9.2.3 with the following clarification.  This variance shall allow the Applicant to maintain the existing hood and duct system within the cooking area of this facility.  As a condition of this variance, the Applicant is directed to provide the existing hood and duct system with a suppression system determined to be appropriate to extinguish the medium underneath it, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  The Board notes that the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office in making this determination, may allow the Applicant to install a smaller suppression system as long as it was determined to be appropriate for the potential fire hazard below.  In granting this relief and clarification, the Board hereby extends the time for compliance through the seasonal opening of this facility in May of 2012.  The Board further grants the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office the authority and discretion to extend the above timeline for good faith efforts being demonstrated by the Applicant.  
Finally, as a condition of this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to install and maintain an approved portable K-type fire extinguisher in this kitchen area to allow for approved manual fire suppression.  The K-type fire extinguisher shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshals Office prior to the May opening of this facility.

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)].