The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 22, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook and Filippi 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 Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Filippi 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 May 26, 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 June 22, 2004 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the May 26, 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. The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to provide this facility with an approved local fire alarm system installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office. 
	
2. The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days from the date of this decision in order to provide this facility with an approved fire department key access box, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.
	
3. During the June 22, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had complied with the required self-closing device on the door at the top of the front basement stairs.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to allow this door to maintain the existing swing.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that this area is only utilized by employees and has been marked Not An Exit.
	
4. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing height of the cited rear basement stairway of this facility.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that this basement shall not be utilized by the public.
	
5. During the June 22, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had a 36 inch door leading to the parking lot from this facility.  The Board was further advised that this door provides the general egress from the building.  In light of the above, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days in order to address the front interior egress door system.  Specifically, the Board directs the Applicant to work with East Providence in attempting to limit this obstruction, to the best of the parties ability, within the above time period.  Any solution, deemed acceptable by the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office, shall be deemed acceptable by the Board.
	
6. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.2.2.3 in order to allow the Applicant not to maintain a landing platform on the rear egress stairway from the bar/lounge.  The Board further grants a variance in order to allow the Applicant not to maintain a landing on the east egress stairway from the game room.  Finally, the Board grants the Applicant additional relief not to re-swing the cited egress doors from this facility.  In granting this relief, it is the understanding of the Board that these doors are always held in the open positions during all hours of occupancy and the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office has determined that there may be more problems created by re-swinging the doors then are solved

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)].