The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on March 4, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Richard, Filippi, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame, OConnell, Evans and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Valise of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	It is the understanding of the Board that the subject building is a facility being utilized by the Applicant.  The Applicant is requesting permission to maintain a four-(4) burner kitchen range within this facility without an approved hood exhaust and suppression system in conformance with NFPA 96.  Specifically, the Applicant is relying upon Board Formal Interpretation 95-3 where the fire marshal may require the owner to apply for a variance from compliance with NFPA 96 and formally testify on the record that the stove in question shall be limited in its use and never used to generate grease-latent-vapors.  The Applicant has made this representation to the Board that the four-(4) burner range would be utilized by staff only and not be utilized to generate grease latent vapors. 
	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 defined in Section 23-28.11-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

	CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of NFPA 96 as it relates to the four  (4) burner domestic range within this facility.  In order to allow the Applicant not to provide the kitchen range with an approved hood exhaust and suppression system in light of the Applicants testimony that it shall never be utilized to generate grease-latent-vapors as outlined in Formal Interpretation 95-3.
	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.  
	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. 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.  
	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.  

	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)].