The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 2, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, O’Connell, Filippi, Burlingame, Richard and Coutu were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Robert Jobin of the East Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with a January 16, 2001 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 October 2, 2001 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the January 16, 2001 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board's findings, such as correction of a deficiency by 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. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 30-3.6 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain existing corridor doors with the cited wired glass panels.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the East Providence Fire Marshal's Office has no objection in light of the Applicant's planned compliance with the items listed below.

2. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal. 

3. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal.

4. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 4 to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal.

5. It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 5 to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal.

6. During the October 2, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Providence Fire Marshal advised the Board that the cited corridors should be provided with an approved Class-A finish. 

Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 6 by providing the cited corridors with an approved Class-A finish installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal.

7. During October 2, 2001 hearing this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had removed the stove from the kitchen of this facility and that there would be no cooking. Accordingly, Board finds deficiency 7 to be moot.

8. During October 2, 2001 hearing this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had removed the stove from the kitchen of this facility. Accordingly, Board finds deficiency 8 to be moot.

9. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 9 by properly rating the cited drop ceiling at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Providence Fire Marshal.

10. During October 2, 2001 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant had disabled the cited folding partition.  Accordingly, since the room cannot now be divided, the Board hereby finds deficiency 10 to be moot.

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)].

This decision was mailed on 10-12-01.