The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 15, 2004 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Evans, Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Pearson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Michalczyk of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Evans to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Preiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 20, 2004 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the June 15, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 20, 2004 plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board’s 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 the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the authority having jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal or his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshal or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal.)”

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1. The Board notes that this facility consists of a proposed take out chicken counter and three (3) apartment units.  During the June 15, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant was willing to provide this facility with an approved fire alarm system and also to provide separation acceptable to the Providence Fire Marshal.  The Board notes that listed two (2) hour separations would be very difficult to achieve in this building.  Accordingly, if the Applicant is able to produce comparable separation, acceptable to the Providence Fire Marshal, this comparable separation shall be deemed acceptable to the Board for purposes of compliance.
	
In light of the above, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant to provide suitable separation between the mercantile unit and the remaining residential units, at the direction and to the satisfaction of Providence Fire Marshal.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the entire building with an approved local fire alarm system, emergency lights and exit signs and any other required systems deemed necessary by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  Finally, as a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to remove the fire escape ladder from the roof of the other building and to locate that ladder in an area deemed acceptable by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.
	
2. The Board directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #2.
	
3. The Board directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #3.	
	
4. The Board directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #4.
	
5. The Board directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #5.
	
6. The Board directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #6 by relocating the fire escape to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal before occupancy.	
	
7. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #7 by providing this facility with an approved UL listed deep fryer unit at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

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 Applicant’s 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 Board’s 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 Board’s 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)].