The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 18, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Blackburn, Newbrook, Evans, Burlingame and OConnell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal David Vartian of the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Blackburn 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 August 6, 2004 inspection report compiled by the North Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Providence Fire Marshals Office during the October 18, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the August 6, 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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1-5.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to bring deficiencies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 into compliance at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals office.
	6.  During the October 18, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the kitchen exhaust hood suppression system is outdated.  At that time, the Board directed the Applicant to either properly service the old system or to remove the old system.  The Applicant advised the Board that he would voluntarily remove the kitchen exhaust system, and there would be no more commercial cooking on the premises.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days in which to remove the cited commercial cooking suppression system.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant not to engage in commercial cooking on the premises.
	7-11.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiencies 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence Fire Marshals office.
	12.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2.1 and 7.1.5.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited head room in the basement of this facility.  This variance is based on structural hardship pursuant to the Boards understanding and direction that it shall be utilized for equipment and storage only and that there shall be no public access in this area.  
	13.  During the October 18, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had worked with the North Providence Fire Marshals office and will provide floor plans showing an approved configuration of tables and chairs for this facility.  Upon receipt of the above floor plans, the North Providence Fire Marshals office shall calculate the occupancy load for this facility under a non-concentrated use.  Accordingly, the Board has been advised that the occupancy of this facility shall be officially posted at 107 individuals.  In light of the above, the Board determines that deficiency 13 is moot, because the occupancy of this facility shall be less than 150 people in accordance with the above calculations.
	14 and 15.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to correct deficiencies 14 and 15 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Providence 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 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)].