The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on May 23, 2006 at 1:00 P.M. and a decision, outlining a plan of action for this facility, was thereupon issued on August 28, 2006.  By letter dated December 14, 2006, the Applicant has requested additional time to bring this facility into compliance.  Accordingly, the above captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Pearson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Troy Phillips of the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicant did not appear at the scheduled meeting.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to deny the requested relief and to determine that the previously granted relief was void and that the currently unoccupied building should not be reoccupied until it is brought into full compliance with the State Fire Code.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts its original findings of fact in file number 050175 as its initial findings of fact in this case.  In addition, the Board finds that the Applicant has requested an additional thirty (30) days as outlined in his December 14, 2006 letter to the Board.  Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the December 14, 2006 letter of the Applicant as part of its additional findings of fact.  In addition, the Board was advised by the Oakland Mapleville Fire Marshal's office and finds that the Applicant has not engaged in crowd management in this facility and that when the building was in alarm the patrons did not evacuate but stayed within the facility while the alarm was ringing.  The Board was further advised by the Marshal and finds that the Applicant has provided interior partitions within this facility consisting of plastic or vinyl yard fencing walls.  The Board further finds that the above vinyl separations and the other wall covering within this facility are not properly fire protected.  The Board finds that the Applicant did not secure the required permits prior to renovating this facility.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has provided this facility with a new business and a new kitchen without approved suppression.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has voluntarily closed this building.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has failed to appear at the hearing to review his request for additional time.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby denies the Applicants request for additional time and further finds that this building is currently not in compliance with the original decision in this matter, and accordingly all of the relief granted in the original decision is now void.  Accordingly, the Board directs that the Applicant shall bring this facility into full compliance with the code prior to any re-occupancy.

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)].