The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on February 3, 2009 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, it was determined that it would be appropriate for the Board to conduct an on-site subcommittee review of the newly renovated high school complex. Accordingly, a subcommittee, consisting of Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook, and Commissioners Dias, Pearson, Jasparro, Preiss, along with the Executive Director, conducted their on-site review of this complex on February 10, 2009 at 10:00 AM. 

The fire service was represented by the Chepachet Fire Chief, members of the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office, and the State Fire Marshals Office. The Applicant was represented by members of the Regional Building Committee, along with its design professionals, and certain specialty sub-contractors. Also present were representatives of the Regional Districts Maintenance Department.

The findings and recommendations of the subcommittee were thereupon reported to the full Board during its February 10, 2009 meeting at 1:00 PM. At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Preiss, Jasparro, Walker, Pearson and Dias were present.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Vice Chairman to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous. Accordingly, the recommendations of the Subcommittee, as outlined herein, are now a full Decision of the State Fire Board.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an inspection report, covering the above-captioned complex, complied by the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office on the 8th and 9th of September 2008. The above Chepachet inspection report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office during the February 10, 2009 subcommittee review of this facility. Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the above Chepachet 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. 
	The Board was further advised and finds that the original fire code plan review for this facility was conducted, in large part, by outside experts hired by the Chepachet Department and not directly by the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office. Accordingly, the Board finds that there were apparently internal differences of opinion as to whether certain fire safety components, within this complex, were appropriate. These differences of opinion apparently arose during the compliance inspection of this complex that took place on the 8th and 9th of September 2008. 
	The Board further finds that the major question raised by the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office involved the installation of a roll-up door in the foyer between the field house and the educational facility. This door was installed in order to allow the building to be reviewed as two (2) distinctly separated structures. The Board finds that if the above roll-down door is not considered to be appropriate two (2) hour fire separation, the entire complex would have to be fully sprinkled creating an enormous unanticipated cost to the Regional School District.   
 
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant shall correct Item 1, by providing this facility with the required No Parking Fire Lane signage, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office. 
2.	The Board hereby approves the use of the cited roll-up gate, to allow the Applicant to provide approved separation of the field house and the educational occupancy, in accordance with the conditions listed herein. Specifically, the Applicant shall be relieved of the requirement of fully sprinkling this complex as long as the Applicant continues to comply with the conditions herein. In the event that the Applicant fails to comply with the conditions herein, either the Chepachet Fire Marshal or the Applicant may request that the parties return to the Board, for further review, prior to the installation of sprinkler coverage. 
	As an initial condition of the above relief, the Board directs the Applicant to conduct quarterly testing of the roll-down door coordinated with the quarterly testing of the fire alarm system in this complex. In addition, the Board directs the Applicant to provide the roll-down door with approved fusible links, on both sides, to assure its deployment during a fire emergency. 
The Board further directs the Applicant to have the roll-down door stop at a point six (6) inches or less from the floor, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office. The Board notes that this recommendation of the Chepachet Fire Chief could prevent people from being trapped under the door and further assist fire fighters in allowing the door to be manually raised if necessary.   
	The Board further directs the Applicant to properly encase the rails of the roll-down door at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Chepachet Fire Marshal. The Board notes that this would assure that the rails are not damaged and/or rendered inoperable over the course of time. 
	The Board further directs that the Applicant not to utilize the roll-down door for crowd control, or as a security barrier, during assembly, athletic or any other events. Additionally, the Board directs that the Applicant to annually provide the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office with a list of proposed school events and a schedule of night time proposed activities prior to each academic year. The Board further directs the Applicant to revise and update this list of events, with the Chepachet Fire Marshal, as soon as additional events are scheduled and confirmed. 
	Finally, at the request of the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office, the Board directs the Applicant to provide appropriate fire department access, when the above door is activated and rolled down, by equipping the exterior doors, located in the north eastern wall of the cafeteria, with approved hardware to allow the rapid entry of fire department personnel, equipment and hoses, into the area beyond the roll down-door. The above doors shall be so equipped at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office.
3 & 4.	The Board notes that section 4.6.1.1 of the code allows for the AHJ with enforcement jurisdiction, as defined in section 1.6.1, to determine whether the specific provisions of the code are met. However, the referenced AHJ cites in sections 4.6.1.2 and 4.6.1.3, involving additional code requirements and/or modifications are restricted to the Fire Board as the AHJ for administration of the code as defined in section 1.6.2. As such, the Board shall review items 3 and 4 as recommendations of the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office. 
Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the parties to review the recommendations outlined in items 3 and 4 to determined whether the proposed LP Gas shut down and radio communications systems are feasible and advisable. If the parties are in agreement on either or both of these requests, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance in order to make any agreed-upon upgrades within a time table established by the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office. The Board notes that any such voluntary upgrades should not interfere with the issuance of a final CO for this complex. 
5  26.	The Board notes that the Applicant has agreed to correct deficiencies 5 through 26, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office. Accordingly, the Board hereby grants the Chepachet Fire Marshals Office the authority to grant the Applicant sufficient time to correct the above deficiencies. Finally, the Board notes that this file shall remain open, until a final certificate of occupancy is issued, to address any future fire code issues that are raised between the parties.   

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)].