The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 28, 2012 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Burlingame, Sylvester, Jackson and Dias were present.  Commissioner Richard arrived after the commencement of this hearing and therefore recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Steven Hughes of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  An initial motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Jackson.  However, this motion failed in light of the opposition votes of Commissioner Burlingame and Commissioner Dias.  A second motion was made by Commissioner Dias and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition vote of Commissioner Burlingame.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the subject facility is a proposed building at 1600 South County Trail in East Greenwich.  The Board further finds that as of the date of this hearing, no final and complete construction documents have been reviewed by the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office.  The Board finds that the Applicant contends that both levels of the proposed two-story building meet the definition of a level of exit discharge.  The Board finds that this definition is outlined in RI Life Safety Code  3.3.6.4.1 which is herein incorporated by reference.  
	The Board finds that the Applicant is seeking to have the upper level of this facility deemed the level of exit discharge in order to take advantage of the occupant loads outlined in Table 12.1.6 of NFPA 101.  The Board finds that the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office consulted with NFPA officials and subsequently advised the Applicant to reconfigure the lower level of this facility so that level would not meet the definition of exit discharge thereby allowing the Applicant to qualify the upper level as the level of exit discharge.  The Board finds that the Applicant declined to do this and filed the appeal herein.
	The Board finds that due to the proposed grading of this facility, both the upper and lower levels can be made to exit at grade level on opposite sides of the building.  The Board finds that the Applicant was concerned about adding additional steps to the lower level because this process could interfere with both handicapped and fire department access along with rapid egress of the lower level.  The Board further finds that, in light of the above, the artificial modification of the lower level to simply disqualify it as a level of exit discharge is not in the best interest of either the building owner or the fire service.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance in order to allow the upper level of this proposed building to be considered the level of exit discharge for purposes of determining the occupancy and use of the building during the plan review process.  The Board notes that the upper level of this facility shall be considered a level of exit discharge even if the Applicant chooses to construct this facility to allow both the upper and the lower levels to discharge at grade at opposite ends.  Accordingly, the Applicant shall not be required to add steps to the lower level egress of this facility in order to disqualify it as a potential level of exit discharge.  The lower level shall remain as proposed and the upper level shall be designated the level of exit discharge.  In granting this relief, the Board has been advised by the parties that the finalized drawings shall fully comply with the code consistently with the above relief granted.

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)].