The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on June 10, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Pearson, Filippi, Coutu and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Jeffrey Johnson of the Pawtucket Fire Marshal’s Office and Deputy State Fire Marshal David Curran of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed with Commissioner Richard abstaining.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 7, 2003 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Pawtucket and State Fire Marshal’s Offices during the June 10, 2003 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 7, 2003 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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1-4.  It is the understanding of the Board that variances were previously granted for deficiencies 1, 2, 3, and 4 by the Board on May 11, 1992.
	
5.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.6-6 in order to allow the Applicant to egress through a serving area which is not the kitchen.  The serving area has a marked-off path of egress.  As a condition of this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide panic hardware on the rear door going through the area and to bolt the tables in this area to the floor in order to prevent movement and obstruction of this means of egress.  In light of the above, the Pawtucket Fire Marshal and State Fire Marshal have no objection.  Finally, it is the understanding of the Board that this building is served by four means of egress.
	
6.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #6.
	
7.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #7.
	
8.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #8.
	
9.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 23-28.6-8 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing metal doors as approved doors.  In granting this variance, the Pawtucket and State Fire Marshal’s offices have advised that the doors appear to be rated but that there are no labels.  Accordingly, they have no objection to the granting of this relief.
	
10.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #10 by providing the cited door with approved panic hardware as outlined in item #5 above.
	
11.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency #11 by providing the cited ladies room with an approved rated door installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal within sixty (60) days from the date of this decision.
	
12(a).  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 12(a) by providing the cited doors with approved panic hardware and removing the deadbolts at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal’s office within sixty (60) days.
	
12(b)  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 12(b).
	
13.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #13.
	
14.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #14.
	
15.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #15.
	
16.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #16.
	
17.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency #17.

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)].