The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 24, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Preiss, Blackburn, Walker, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Robert Emmott and Christopher Heiner 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 March 8, 2009 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 March 24, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 8, 2009 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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 1 by providing this facility with a fire alarm system and further providing this facility voluntarily with a master box.  
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 96 sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.1.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing hood over the cooking appliances within this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board notes the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's observation that the hood is always clean and that the cooking activity is limited in general to no more than two (2) hours at a time with members only utilizing the kitchen.  Accordingly, this variance is based upon the above limited use.
	3.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 96 sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 in order to allow the Applicant to utilize a residential style suppression system in conjunction with its existing hood.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days in which to submit plans for the new suppression system and an additional 120 days in which to install the new suppression system, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office.
	4-7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal's office.
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)].