As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on May 13, 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, Pearson, Sylvester and Thornton.
Department of Administration Deputy Chief Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Deputy State Fire Marshals Cynthia Dehler and Scott Caron of the State Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Attorney Julie P. Hamil, Stephen Kerr and Stephen Kyle.
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 Attorney Julie P. Hamil (Deputy General Counsel) of 250 Benefit Street, Providence, RI dated April 2, 2014.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  140039 opened on April 15, 2014.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on May 13, 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 Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Sylvester to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 9 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  140039 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  140039 dated April 2, 2014 and filed on April 15, 2014.
2.	State Fire Marshals Office letter to Stephen J. Kerr dated March 5, 2014.
3.	Letter from Julie P. Hamil to the Board dated April 2, 2014.
4.	Drawing  G1.03 dated September 26, 2013.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the May 13, 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 numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the March 5, 2014 letter compiled by the State Fire Marshals Office.  The above letter was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the May 13, 2014 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 5, 2014 letter 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 an existing 6-story multiple use occupancy consisting of assembly and business spaces.
3.	The building is of masonry construction and is provided with sprinkler protection and has a compliant fire alarm system.
4.	The set of cross-corridor doors on the 4th floor segregating corridor 400 from corridor 423 are equipped with a magnetic locking mechanism restricting travel in the east direction  these doors are depicted on Drawing G1.03 as A.
5.	Cross-corridor doors A are interfaced with the buildings fire alarm system to automatically release upon system activation.
6.	Due to this locking arrangement, a dead-end corridor of fifty-two feet (52) in length has been created in corridor 400.
7.	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 RILSC section 39.2.5.2 allowing the existing 4th floor egress system in corridor 400 to remain in use, noting that this exceeds the permitted dead-end corridor length by only two feet (2).
2.	Deficiency has been corrected.

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)].