A hearing involving the above-captioned case was conducted on 3/11/2014 at 1:00 P.M.  In attendance at the hearing were the following: Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Pearson, Walker, Thornton, Richard and Burlingame.  Also in attendance was Department of Administration Deputy Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.  The authority having jurisdiction was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Frank Silva, Timothy Lutz, Michael Krasnowiecki and Christopher Dillon of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicant was represented by Mr. Eric Army, Mr. George Farrell and Mr. Kevin Moran (letter of authorization on file).  A motion was made by Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Richard to deny the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed unanimously.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

	1.  This matter was previously before the Rehabilitation Building and Fire Code for existing Buildings and Structures Board on March 26, 2013 at which time Decision R130002 was issued.
	2.  The Applicant filed an application for variance on March 11, 2014 in accordance with Fire Safety Code Section 6.


RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal 140028 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application 140028 dated March 11, 2014.
2.	Plan Review letter from Providence Fire Prevention Division dated September 5, 2012 [with corrections made September 7, 2012].
3.	Rehabilitation Board Decision R130002 dated March 26, 2013.
4.	E-mail from PFD Inspector Timothy Lutz dated February 21, 2014.
5.	As-Built project drawings from Studio Meja dated February 27, 2014.
6.	Letter from Providence Fire Prevention Division dated March 8, 2014.
7.	Transmittal package from Eric Army [Studio Meja] dated March 10, 2014.
8.	E-mails (2) from PFD Inspector Timothy Lutz dated March 11, 2014.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were admitted at the March 11, 2014 hearing as full exhibits:

1.	Affidavit of Kevin Moran dated March 7, 2014.
2.	Two (2) pages depicting eight (8) photographs from Providence Fire Prevention Division titled March 4, 2014  GPUB.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	1.  Inspector Lutz and Marshal Silva presented testimony that there are numerous outstanding deficiencies relating to this project, most pertinent being the question of the installation methods utilized in affixing Sonex Value-Line acoustic panels to the basement assembly occupancys ceiling and the installation of required smoke curtains.  Further testimony indicated that due to the lack of any certificate of occupancy and the nature of the unsafe, dangerous or hazardous conditions present, the chief of the department has deemed a two-person uniformed firefighter detail necessary whenever the basement assembly occupancy is occupied in accordance with section 12.7.6.7.
	2.  Mr. George Farrell presented testimony that the Applicant was seeking a full exemption from the requirements for any uniformed firefighter detail in accordance with section 12.7.6.11.  In the alternative, the Applicant is requesting that the uniformed firefighter details be replaced with an owner-supplied fire watch in accordance with section 3.3.104.
	3.  Mr. Eric Army and Mr. Kevin Moran presented testimony as to the ratings, installation methods and technical specifications of the acoustic panels in question.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

	1.  The Board hereby denies the Applicants request for an exemption to the requirement of a two-person uniformed firefighter detail whenever the basement assembly occupancy is occupied, as deemed necessary by the Chief of the Providence Fire Department.
	2.  It is the understanding of the Board that as soon as the cited smoke curtains have been verified as properly installed by the Providence Fire Department that the uniformed firefighter detail will be reduced to one-person detail.

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)].