The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 19, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Blackburn, Preiss, Evans, Newbrook, Burlingame, Pearson, Filippi, OConnell and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley and Lt. Ronald Vespia of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an August 28, 2004 inspection report compiled by the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office during the July 19, 2005 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the August 28, 2004 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards 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 understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the State Fire Marshal.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  As a condition of the variances granted herein, the Board hereby directs the Applicant to limit the occupancy of this facility to a maximum of 125 people.  As a further condition of all the variances granted herein, this facility must be maintained by the current management, in accordance with a plan of action approved by the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office.  The transfer of this facility to new management or ownership, shall void these variances and require the new manager or owner to either comply with the original decision or return to the Board for review.  As a further condition of this relief, the Board notes that the fryolaters within this facility have been removed and shall not be replaced.  Finally, in the event the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office determines that the Applicant is maintaining this facility in excess of the above 125 occupant maximum, the Applicant will be thereupon directed to comply fully with the August 28, 2004 inspection report.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant has corrected deficiency 2 by removing the cited fryolaters.
	3.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 3 within 120 days of the date of this decision at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office.
	4.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 4 by upgrading the emergency lighting in this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	5.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 5 by upgrading the exit signage in this facility, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office, within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	6.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 6 by providing this facility with an approved municipally connected fire alarm system, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office, within 120 days of the date of this decision.
	7.  The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 7 by providing this facility with an approved lock box for the placement of keys, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office, within 120 days of the date of this decision.
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 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. (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 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.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-20).
	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)].