The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 6, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Filippi, Blackburn, Newbrook, Richard, Preiss, Burlingame, Pearson and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Cynthia Dehler of the State Fire Marshals 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 December 14, 2004 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the June 6, 2006 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 14, 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, 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.	During the June 6, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had previously received a variance to maintain the existing vertical opening and conveyor system outlined in deficiency 1.  However, the Applicant has agreed to correct this deficiency at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal.  Accordingly, the State Fire Marshal shall determine the time necessary for the Applicant to correct this deficiency.
2.	During the June 6, 2006 hearing on this matter, the Board was further advised that the Applicant had previously received a variance to maintain the cited non-rated egress path including the glass panels in the cited double doors and the full glass door leading to the dining area.  The original variance was granted pursuant to fact that this facility is fully sprinkled and further protected by a municipally-connected fire alarm system.  In light of the above protection, the board hereby reinstates the above relief by granting a variance from the provision of section 7.1.3.2.1, and its referenced standards, in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the above condition under the new code provisions stemming from both existing business and new educational occupancy chapters of the code. 
3-5.	It is the understanding of the Board  that the Applicant has  corrected deficiencies 3,4, and 5 of the December 14, 2004 inspection report, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshals 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 continue 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)].