The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 27, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson, Filippi and Newbrook were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Silva of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioners Burlingame, Richard and Blackburn abstaining.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board notes that there were prior hearings covering this facility on January 17, 2006 and March 14, 2006.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in its decisions in file numbers 050013 and 050013A as its initial findings of fact in this case.  The Board further notes that the above decisions addressed Phase I of the operation and that the Applicant is now planning Phase II of the operation.  As part of Phase II, the Applicant presented the Board with a June 12, 2006 letter outlining its plan of action for the make-up air in the commercial kitchen of this facility.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the June 12, 2006 letter from Mr. Gary Graham to Lt. Richard Silva as its initial findings of fact relating to the question as to the make-up air of this facility.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant is proceeding with Phase II as originally discussed.
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  It is the determination of the Board that the June 12, 2006 description of the Applicants proposal for make-up air in the kitchen of this facility is in compliance with the State Fire Code.  The Board notes that any question as to compliance with the International Mechanical Code should be addressed to the Building Official.

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)].