As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on May 6, 2014 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook, Vice-Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Blackburn, Booth, Burlingame, Jackson, Richard, and Thornton.
Department of Administration Deputy Chief Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.

AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Deputy State Fire Marshal Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office.

APPLICANT: Jay Colgan and Michael Haigh (Allied Fire Protection).

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under Chapter 23-28.3, entitled the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Jay Colgan (Owner) of 1095 Park Avenue, Cranston, RI on April 3, 2014.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File 140037 opened on April 3, 2014.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on May 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Thornton to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on an 8 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  140037 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application 140037 dated April 3, 2014 and filed on April 3, 2014.
2.	State Fire Marshals Office Plan Review dated March 28, 2014.
3.	State Fire Marshals Office Building Description for Site 71 dated April 28, 2014.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the May 6, 2014 hearing as exhibits:

1.	None.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The Decision below corresponds with the March 28, 2014 plan review report compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the May 6, 2014 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 28, 2014 plan review 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.
2.	The building is a proposed 1-story day-care occupancy of Type V (000) construction and will be provided with automatic sprinklers and fire alarm protection.
3.	The minimum water supply for the proposed system was designed for a light hazard occupancy with a required density/area calculation of 0.10 gpm/ft2 over an area of sprinkler operation of 1,500 ft2.
4.	The municipal water supply in the area does not have the necessary pressure and/or volume capacity to meet the design requirements for the attic dry-pipe system as prescribed by NFPA 13 (2010) sections 11.2.3.2.4 and 11.2.3.2.5, each requiring a 30 percent increase in design area of operation, without installing a fire pump.
5.	The sprinkler protection being installed is not a required system.
6.	There is no objection by the State Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	[14-179-VN]  The Board grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of NFPA 13 (2010) sections 11.2.3.2.4 and 11.2.3.2.5 requiring two (2) system design increases for the dry-pipe sprinkler system being installed in the attic space.

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).

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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).
2.	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).
3.	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).
4.	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)].