The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 23, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Burlingame, Blackburn and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Joseph Marcello of the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshal's Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame 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 December 9, 2004 inspection report compiled by the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshals Office during the May 23, 2006 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 9, 2004 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 
	1-6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshal's office.
	7.  During the May 23, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought to post this facility at fifteen (15) square feet per person for a total maximum occupancy of 148 people.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a conditional variance in order to allow the Fire Marshal to re-calculate this facility at fifteen (15) square feet per person and to post a total occupancy of 148 people for this facility in accordance with the above calculation, under the following conditions.  
As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to remove all of the cited fire loading within this facility at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshal's office within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision.  The Board further directs the Applicant to submit plans to upgrade the hood and duct suppression system covering the cooking of this facility within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision and to install the upgraded hood and duct suppression system within 120 days of the date of this decision.  The Board further directs the Applicant to provide the walls of this facility with approved fire stopping and a Class A finish within 120 days of the date of this decision.  The Board further directs the Applicant to provide and/or maintain two (2) approved exits from this facility, one in the front and one at the side at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshal's office.  
The Board further directs, as a condition of this variance, that the Applicant and/or representatives of the Applicant attend approved crowd manager classes at the State Fire Marshal's office and further develop and submit an emergency plan of action to the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshal.  Finally, the Board notes that there may be scheduled events that exceed the 148 person maximum.  When any such events take place, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to provide this facility with an approved firefighter detail and any additional safeguards deemed necessary by the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshal's office.
	8.  In light of the reduction of occupancy to 148 people, the Applicant shall not be required to provide floor proximate exit signs as long as he complies with the above conditions for the reduced occupancy.  
	9.  The Board hereby directs the applicant to correct deficiency 9 by having an employee attend a crowd manager class, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Oakland Mapleville 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)].