The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 9, 2009 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Richard, Jackson, Preiss, Walker, Dias and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Gregory Unsworth and John Horan of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office and Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Walker and seconded by Commissioners Dias and Jackson 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 an October 11, 2007 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State and North Providence Fire Marshals Offices during the June 9, 2009 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 11, 2007 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
1-2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 1 and 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals Office.
3.  During the June 9, 2009 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant maintains a ten-burner gas stove within the kitchen of this facility.  The Board was further advised and finds that this gas stove has limited use of less than two (2) hours per day and that the current management of this facility has submitted to the Board a self-policing affidavit regarding the kitchen stove as proof of its intended compliance with the listed safeguards.  The Board was further advised and finds that the stove has not been used as a cooking stove since 1991 but only utilized for the warming of snacks and the boiling of water.  In light of the above determinations of the Board along with the June 9, 2009 affidavit by the Applicants representative, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 13.3.2.2 and 9.2.3 and its referenced standards in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing stove within this facility without a commercial fixed suppression system.  If in the future the Applicant wishes to intensify the use of this stove, the Applicant shall first contact the State and North Providence Fire Marshals offices for the review of the proposed intensity of use in order to determine whether a fixed suppression system would be necessary at that time.
4.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State and North Providence Fire Marshals Offices.
5.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision in order to develop and submit plans for the proper flame spread rating of the paneling within this facility.  The Board further grants the Applicant an additional 120 days in order to implement this plan, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State and North Providence Fire Marshals Offices.  Finally, during the above period, the Board shall leave this file open in the event the Applicant or fire service have additional questions as to the correction of this deficiency.
6-15.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiencies 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State and North Providence Fire Marshals Offices.

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)].