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: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Waterman II of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Lisa Laliberte and John Metcalf.
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 Bryant University (Lisa Laliberte) of 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield RI dated April 9, 2014.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  140044 opened on April 22, 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 Pearson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on an 8 to 0 vote with Commissioner Blackburn abstaining from the vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  140044 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  140044 dated April 9, 2014 and filed on April 22, 2014.
2.	Smithfield Fire Marshals Plan Review Report  14.0188.PRC1 dated March 19, 2014.
3.	Letter sent by ADSFM James Waterman of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office to Bond Bros., Inc. dated March 19, 2014.
4.	Letter from John Metcalf to the Board dated April 9, 2014.
5.	E-Mail from Lisa Laliberte to the Board dated May 9, 2014.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the May 13, 3014 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 19, 2014 plan review report compiled by the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the May 13, 2014 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 19, 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 renovations of the Unistructure Building on the Bryant University campus include the installation of a new addressable fire alarm system with voice evacuation, automatic sprinkler protection throughout and a fire pump.
3.	The area where the Applicant seeks relief is noted on the Smithfield Fire Marshals plan review as item  4(b) and is limited to the lower level main corridor.
4.	The lower level main corridor is limited to staff and service personnel  there is no student access to this area.
5.	Due to the congestion of installed utilities and conduits and the asbestos protection on the steel structural members the installation of new alarm devices is not practical.
6.	There is no objection by the Smithfield 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 9.6.2.11(1) allowing the existing lower level main corridor heat detectors to remain in use in lieu of smoke detection based upon a structural hardship and the other safety improvements made to the building.

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)].