The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 20, 2004 at 1:25 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Theodore Hopkins of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook 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 June 3, 2004 inspection report compiled by the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the July 20, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 3, 2004 inspection 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 through 7. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant either has corrected or shall correct deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at the direction and to the satisfaction of East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office within 120 days from the date of this decision.  Specifically, the Applicant is directed to correct deficiency 4 by bringing the hood exhaust system into compliance with NFPA Standard 96 within the above 120 day time period.
	
8. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to access the basement through the existing hatch in the floor behind the bar.  In granting this variance the Board notes that this is normally an unoccupied space and utilized only by service personnel and that the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.
	
9. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing basement stairs.  In granting this variance, again the Board notes that this is normally an unoccupied space used only by service personnel and that the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.
	
10. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2.11 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing basement ceiling height for the reason outlined in items 8 and 9 above.  In addition, the Board notes that the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.
	
11. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain one (1) means of egress from the basement, as outlined above.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the area is unoccupied and that the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection.
	
12. During the July 20, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant shall provide, as a condition of the variances granted herein, a domestically supplied sprinkler head over the boiler of this facility.  The Board was further advised that the existing sprinkler system in this facility can be activated with the FDC connection but it is not connected to a municipal water supply.  The Board notes that the above sprinkler system cannot be omitted if the sprinkler heads are used as heat detection for the fire alarm system.

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)].