The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 21, 2013 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Jackson, Burlingame and Richard were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Joseph Michalczyk and Christopher Dillon of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Jackson and seconded by Vice Chairperson Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of a May 1, 2013 (revised on May 20, 2013) letter from the Applicants engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc.  The above engineering letter was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the May 21, 2013 hearing on this matter.  By letter dated May 13, 2013, the Providence Fire Marshals Office advised the Board that the comprehensive analysis provided by the Applicants engineer presented a legitimate argument for the requested relief.  Accordingly, the Providence Fire Marshals Office further advised the Board that there was no objection to the variances as requested.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the Applicants May 1, 2013 (revised May 20, 2013) engineering letter and comprehensive analysis along with the May 13, 2013 letter of the Providence Fire Marshal 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 Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).
	In addition, the Board finds that the subject facility, Schneider Arena, is predominantly used as an indoor sports arena, especially for the sport of ice hockey.  The Board further finds that the arena has been utilized for graduations and concerts.  The Board further finds that aside from the rink/spectator area, the building contains a press box, a lounge, equipment rooms, locker rooms and other support rooms.  The Board further finds that the building construction most closely resembles Type II (111) although there is no rating on the ceiling/roof construction.  
	The Board further finds that as part of the proposed building addition, the construction type of the existing arena is required to be classified as Type II (111) construction.  The Board further finds that as an alternative to upgrading the existing roof construction to provide a minimum one-hour fire resistance rating, the Applicants engineer has completed a performance based analysis to examine the impact of fire scenarios on the roofs supporting structure and the ability of the occupants to safely egress the arena.  Finally, the Board finds that the building is currently protected throughout by an automatic fire sprinkler system with the exception of the rink/spectator arena area.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  In light of the comprehensive fire protection analysis performed by the Applicants engineer, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 12.3.5.2 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain the existing construction and rating of the structural steel truss work and the perimeter beams/girders supporting the truss work above the rink/arena floor, and that any additional fire protection be allowed to be omitted, and that the building construction would still remain classified as Type II (111).  In granting this relief based upon the engineering analysis, and the fact that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection, it is the understanding of the Board that the above structural steel elements would not be exposed to a fire temperature that would deform the structural steel.
	2.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 12.3.5.2 in order to allow the Applicant to continue to omit fire sprinklers above the rink/spectator ceiling areas and still maintain the building classified as a fully sprinklered building for purposes of the code.  In granting this relief, the Board notes that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection.
	3.  During the May 21, 2013 hearing on this matter, the Applicant requested additional relief in order not to provide sprinkler coverage in the elevator hoistway or machine room of this facility.  It is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshals Office has no objection to this additional relief.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance in order to relieve the Applicant from the requirement of providing sprinkler coverage in the elevator hoistways and machine rooms of this fiaclity.  Finally, the Board notes that as a condition of all of the variances granted above, the Applicant has agreed that there will be no increase of the fire load within this facility.  Specifically, the Applicant will refrain from exhibitions such as home shows, that would provide additional fire load.  Finally, the Board directs the Applicant to continue to work closely with the Providence Fire Marshals Office on and event-by-event basis.

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)].