The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on August 14, 2001 at 1:30 P.M. At that time, Acting Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Wahlberg, O’Connell, Coutu, Richard and Evans were present. A motion was made by Commissioner Evans 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 those of a July 27, 2001 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office. The above report was utilized by the Board during the August 14, 2001 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 27, 2001 plan review 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. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 8-3.1 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the cited open vertical communicating two levels.  This variance is based upon rough equivalency with the majority of standards outlined in section 6-2.4.5.

2. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of sections 8-5.2, 7-2.1 and NFPA 90A section 3-3.4.3 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain grease ducts within the same shaft containing environmental air ducts.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the shaft in question with the proposed two-hour rated  “metal fab” factory built grease duct system, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal, before occupancy of this facility.  It is the determination of the Board that the factory built grease duct system will provide an equivalent degree of protection.

3-5. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiencies 3,4 and 5 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal before occupancy of this facility.

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 9-19-01.