The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 8, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Pearson, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Vice Chairman Coutu 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 19, 2004 inspection report compiled by the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office during the November 8, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the October 19, 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.  During the November 8, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the occupant load of the main level of this facility, calculated at a less concentrated use, would be 216 people.  Accordingly, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the East Greenwich Fire Marshal's office with approved floor plans identifying the above occupant load as the maximum load for the upper level of this facility.  The Board was further advised that the lower level of this facility would never be utilized while the upper level was utilized.  The Board was further advised that the occupancy of this facility would not be allowed to exceed 300 people.  Accordingly, the Board finds that this facility would not be required to be sprinklered.  However, in the event that the occupancy of this facility was scheduled to exceed 150 people at any one time, the Applicant is directed to go to the Fire Marshal's office to secure approval of a plan of action covering such increased occupancy over normal levels.  
	2.  It is the understanding and direction of the Board that the Applicant shall correct deficiency 2 by upgrading the fire alarm system of this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office, within a timetable established by that office.
	3.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 3 by repairing the cited exit sign.
	4.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 11.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing cited stove provided the stove does not generate grease-laden vapors and is utilized only for the warming of foods during catered events.  If this situation changes in the future, the Applicant may then be required to comply with the above suppression requirements.
	5.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 by removing the storage in the cited rear stairwell.
	6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 6 by either removing the cited materials or bringing them into compliance with NFPA 701.


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)].