The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 21, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Pearson, Evans, Burlingame, Coutu, Filippi and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal David Pastore of the West Warwick Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner O’Connell to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds that this business is located in a one story strip mall, type III construction, with all exits at grade level.  The building is fully sprinklered and protected by a supervised fire alarm system.  The restaurant has two approved means of egress.  Each door measures forty two (42) inches wide with a clear width of thirty eight and a half (38 ½) inches.  The total clear width is seventy seven (77) inches, giving a total egress capacity of three hundred fifty (350) people.  The travel distance from the most remote point to the exit is forty (40) feet.

The original maximum occupancy calculated for this facility was eighty one (81) people.  However, under a re-calculation based on the 2003 Life Safety Code, the facility has proper seating for approximately one hundred ten (110) people.  Accordingly, the Applicant is requesting the Board to authorize an increase in occupancy to one hundred ten (110) people in this facility.  Based on the fire protection features within the building as outlined above, the West Warwick Fire Marshal’s office has no objection. 
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  In light of the above, the Board hereby allows the Applicant to maintain a maximum occupancy of this facility of one hundred ten (110) people.

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)].