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 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: Joseph Costanzo and Timothy Wensus (Hughes Associates).

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 Joseph Costanzo (Owner's Representative) of 57 Power Road, Cranston, RI on August 2, 2013.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File 130142 opened on August 9, 2013.
4.	The matter was previously heard by the Board on September 10, 2013 at which time Decision 130142 was issued dated October 30, 2013.
5.	On April 1, 2014 the Applicant, through their consulting engineer requested that the file be re-opened as it relates to the issue of automatic sprinkler protection in above-ceiling spaces.
6.	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.
7.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Booth to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 7 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal 130142A and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application 130142 dated August 2, 2013 and filed on August 9, 2013.
2.	E-Mail from Mark Blackburn of Hughes Associates dated April 1, 2014.
3.	E-Mail from DSFM Wade Palazini of the State Fire Marshals Office dated April 2, 2014.
4.	Letter from Timothy Wensus of Hughes Associates dated April 1, 2014
5.	Decision 130142 dated October 30, 2013.
6.	E-Mail from Brian Peterson authorizing representation by Joseph Costanzo dated August 8, 2013.
7.	Reschedule Notice dated April 3, 2014.

EXHIBITS

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

1.	Applicants 1 - photograph.

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 matter was previously heard by the Board on September 10, 2013 at which time Decision 130142 was issued dated October 30, 2013.
2.	The above Decision 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 October 30, 2013 Decision 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.
3.	The building is an existing 1-story detention and correctional occupancy of Type III (211) construction.
4.	The building is provided with sprinkler and fire alarm protection.
5.	The limited height of above-ceilings spaces in the residential wings combined with other structural components and utilities located therein make it impractical to install sprinkler protection in these spaces.
6.	There are no locks or locking hardware on the doors to individual resident rooms.
7.	The locks or locking hardware on exterior egress doors are key-operable by staff personnel, who are present 24/7/365.
8.	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.	The Board grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of NFPA 13 (2010) requiring the installation of sprinkler protection in the combustible concealed spaces located above the ceilings in the residential wings of the facility.  The Board further directs the Applicant to provide system fire alarm heat detection in those areas where automatic sprinklers are omitted.

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)].