The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on January 18, 2011 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Jasparro, Jackson, Pearson, Preiss and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Lutz of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the January 18, 2011 hearing on this matter, the Board had before it a nine-page summary of the Applicants position along with supporting drawings and additional documentation.  The Board finds that the Applicant is requesting relief from the construction requirements of a pool roof that complies with the code for approximately 2/3 of its total area and does not comply with the height requirements of the code for the remaining 1/3 of its area over the sloped seating within this facility.  
	Based upon the submitted executive summary of this project that was uncontested by the Providence Fire Marshals Office, the Board finds that the subject fitness and aquatic center (FAC) is comprised of three (3) main buildings:  Head House, Natatorium, and Strength and Conditioning.  The Board further finds that the requested relief only pertains to the Natatorium roof assembly.
	The Board further finds that the construction type of the FAC is Type IIA/II (111) non-combustible construction which requires the roof assembly to have a one-hour fire resistance rating.  The Board further finds that the footnote on RI Life Safety Code table 12.1.6 permits the roof assembly rating to be reduced to a non-rated assembly when portions of the roof assembly are at least twenty (20) feet above the floor below.  
	The Board further finds that the Natatorium roof assembly is greater than twenty feet above the pool and the pool deck in all areas except the area above the spectator seating mezzanine.  The Board further finds that the Natatorium roof assembly is approximately fourteen (14) feet above the seating mezzanine at the top of the rising seats and nineteen (19) feet at the bottom of the seating.  The Board further finds that the exception permitted under the footnote found in RILSC table 12.1.6 is not applicable due to the seating mezzanine.  The Board further finds that the seating mezzanine is less than 1/3 of the Natatorium.
	The Board finds that the Applicant has requested relief to be allowed to apply the above footnote to permit the entire Natatorium roof assembly to be a non-rated, non-combustible assembly even for those portions where the roof is less than twenty (20) feet from the floor below.  Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has conducted a detailed fire modeling analysis of this area based on the criteria of ASTM E119/NFPA 251 and concluded that the most susceptible bottom chord of the unprotected steel truss would not fail in a fire scenario pursuant to the above test.  Based on the above, the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant the requested relief in order to utilize the footnote of RI Life Safety Code table 12.1.6 in order to provide the Natatorium (pool) area with a non-rated, non-combustible roof assembly based upon the Applicants findings and fire modeling.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection based upon the report presented by the Applicant.

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)].