The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on November 25, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Newbrook, Evans, Filippi, Coutu, Pearson, O’Connell and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Bruce Rice and Robert Emmott of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds that this is a three story wood frame structure used as an emergency shelter facility for many years.  The Board further finds that the structure is presently undergoing major renovations.  As part of the renovation work a remodeled kitchen is being constructed with new commercial grade cooking equipment being installed.

The Board further finds that as part of this project, a new hood and duct extinguishing system is being installed and the plans were approved for this system to be in compliance with NFPA Standard 96 for Commercial Cooking Operations.  The Board further finds that the requirements for make up air under NFPA Standard 96 are found in section 5-3 (Replacement Air).  

The Board further finds that the structure is being fitted with new windows to make the structure more air tight than it was.  At the present time the kitchen, although equipped with commercial grade cooking equipment, is used for a relatively small number of meals.  However, the Union Fire District Fire Marshal’s office is concerned that there may be a heavier use of the kitchen area to provide additional community services in line of soup kitchen services.  This would require more meals, heavier use of the equipment and additional levels of carbon monoxide in the air.  By letter dated October 22, 2003, the Union Fire District expressed this concern to the Applicant and advised the Applicant to secure engineering documentation with regard to the makeup or replacement air.  It is the understanding of the Board that all other fire code deficiencies in this facility have been corrected by the Applicant.
	
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 directs the Applicant to return to the installer to secure certification that the system was installed in compliance with the makeup air requirements.  The Board further directs the Applicant to provide the above certification to the Union Fire District Fire Marshal.  Upon receipt of the certification by the installer, the Board directs the Union Fire District Fire Marshal not to pursue his request for written documentation from an engineering firm.
	
The Board notes that providing approved makeup air to these appliances is not a costly measure.  The Board further notes that if this makeup air has already been provided by the installer, a certification to that effect by the installer would alleviate the concerns of the Union Fire District Fire Marshal’s office.

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)].