The above case was scheduled for hearing on July 11, 2000 at 1:30 PM.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners in Burlingame, Wahlberg, Coutu, Evans, Fang and Richard were present.  The fire service was represented by an Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal George Calise of the Providence Fire Marshal's Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the decision below correspond with those of a March 22, 2000 plan review report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshal's Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Providence Fire Marshal's Office and the Applicant and during the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the March 22, 2000 plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Board's findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein.
	
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 defined in section 23-28.1-4(3) of the Rhode Island General Laws.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUEST

1. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 1 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

2. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

3. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 3 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

4. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 4 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

5. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 5 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

6. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 6 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

7. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 7 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

8(A) During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that this facility was originally designed to be 101 ft. in height.  The applicant subsequently advised the Board that, due to funding limitations, the proposed penthouse has been deleted from the original plan and that this facility is currently projected to be 81 ft. in height.
	
The applicant further advised the Board that this facility was constructed approximately 1898 as a department store.  It was subsequently converted to a vertical mall in 1929.  The applicant further advised the Board that the Providence building official had determined that this facility was of 2A noncombustible construction.  Specifically, this is  a steel frame facility with 19 inch structural terra-cotta flat arch floor/ceiling assemblies.  Finally, the applicant pointed out that the first, second and third floors of this facility are excessively tall.
	
Accordingly, during the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the applicant advised the Board that he was seeking relief from certain high rise requirements specifically relating to the fire alarm system.  The Providence Fire Marshal advised the Board that any requested relief should first be reviewed by the Department of Telecommunications.  Accordingly, the Board shall maintain this file as an open file in order to allow the applicant to develop a plan of action for the fire alarm system, within this facility, with the Providence Department of Telecommunications. Once the above plan is developed, the applicant may return to present a plan to the Board under the original file number.

8(B). During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 8(B) at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

9. The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-2.2.3.1 and 5-2.2.2.1 in our to allow the applicant to maintain the dimensions of the existing stairs within this facility.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the bottom riser on the outside stairway has been shortened due to the placement of a stamped asphalt sidewalk in front of this facility.  

Initially, the applicant advised the Board that the sidewalk was owned by the city.  However, the Board was later advised that the applicant may have to a tear up to sidewalk to access a portion of the basement within this facility.  If this happens, the Board directs the applicant to make every attempt to correct this deficiency as a relates to the riser adjoining the sidewalk.

10. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 10 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

11(A). The Board hereby grants the applicant a partial variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-2.2.3.1 and 5-2.2.4.2 in our to allow the applicant to provide the principal entrance/egress with approved modified handrails which do not project to the sidewalk.  The above handrails shall be installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  In granting this variance, is the understanding of Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office considers this to be a reasonable request.

11(B). During the 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the basement within this facility is normally an unoccupied space limited to storage and utilities.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-2.2.3.1 and 5-2.2.4.2 in order to allow the applicant to maintain the existing basement stairs with a single handrail.

12(A). The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-2.2.1.2 and 6-2.3.1.1 in order to allow the applicant to enclose the cited eastern stairway at the second floor landing and to allow it to remain open at the first floor level.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the cited eastern stairs discharges into a lobby.

12(B). During the July 11, 2000 hearing this matter, the Board was advised the Providence Fire Marshal's office had determined that the applicant would need a variance for the existing floor/ceiling assembly within this facility.  The variance was deemed necessary because the eastern stairway was constructed of fire barriers which were supported by the existing floor/ceiling assembly.
	
In requesting this variance, the applicant advised the Board that the floor/ceiling assembly was a 19 inch thick terra-cotta flat arch construction with concrete plaster on both the top and bottom.  A wood floor was typically placed on top of the assembly.  The applicant further followed the recommendation of the Providence Fire Marshal's office and consulted NFPA 914 and the HUD Guidelines.  However, the applicant and was unable to find a system comparable to this assembly.
	
While the Providence building official had classified this assembly has 2A noncombustible, the Providence Fire Marshal advised the Board, for the record, at the classification of the building was "undetermined".  The Providence Fire Marshal further advised the Board that he was looking for a two-hour UL assembly around the exposed steel within this facility.  The applicant was thereupon advised the Board that where the exposed steel could not be wrapped with two-hour fire rated materials, he would provide a two-hour UL assembly.
	
Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-2.2.1.2 and 6-2.3.1.1 in our to allow the applicant to maintain the above-described floor/ceiling assembly as the equivalent of a two-hour noncombustible assembly.  In granting this variance, the Board directs the applicant to cover all of the exposed steel within this facility with approved two-hour fire rated materials, and/or two-hour UL listed assemblies, installed at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.

13. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 13 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

14. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 14 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

15. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 15 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

16(A). During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the applicant advised the Board that, due to the unusual nature of the historic our walls within this facility, it would be difficult to achieve a listed assembly in certain areas.  Specifically, the applicant has advised the Board that he would replace the glass of the historic storefronts, on the third, fourth and sixth floors, with rated panels.  He would further provide a substantial barrier behind the walls of these facilities in order to maintain an equivalent fire rating.  In areas of curved construction, the applicant shall provide two or three layers of quarter inch sheetrock to create the rough equivalent of a one-hour fire rating. 
	
Accordingly, the Board grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-2.4, 5-5.1.4 and 5-1.3.1 in our to allow the applicant to maintain the existing remoteness of exits on the typical apartment floors of this facility. In granting this variance, the Board directs the applicant to make every attempt to achieve the rough equivalent of a one-hour fire rating as outlined above.

16(B). During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 16(B)at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

16(C). The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-2.4, 5-5.1.4 and 5-1.3.1 in order to allow the applicant to maintain existing remoteness of exits the unoccupied basement of this facility.  In granting this variance, is the understanding of the Board that the Providence Fire Marshal's office has no objection. 

17. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 17 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

18(A). During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 18(A) at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

18(B). During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 18(B) at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

19. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 19 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

20. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 20 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

21. The Board by directs the applicant to correct deficiency 21 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office by providing the cited wood surfaces in the egress system of this facility with an approved “Class A” finish before occupancy.

22(A). During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 22(A) at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

22(B). During July 11, 2000 hearing this matter, there was a great deal of discussion relating to the earthquake protection for the proposed new sprinkler system within this facility.  In light of the structural components of the floor ceiling assembly within this facility, the Board directed the applicant to consult with a structural engineer in order to determine the weakest points of the proposed sprinkler system.  It is hoped that, with this information, the applicant shall be able to design the sprinkler system within this facility with appropriate earthquake protection, at the direction to satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal's office.  Accordingly, the Board shall maintain the file open in order to review the finalized plan for earthquake protection of the sprinkler system as agreed to by the Providence Fire Marshal and the applicant.

23. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 23 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

24(A). During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 24(A) at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

24(B). The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of life safety code sections 18-5.2.1 and 7-2.1, along with NFPA 90 A, 1996 edition in our to allow the applicant to maintain combustible drain lines within the exhaust air shaft enclosure.  In granting this variance, the Board notes that the cited enclosures house 100 percent exhaust ducts and that there are no waste lines within these enclosures.

25. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 25 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

26. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 26 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

27. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised by both the applicant and the Providence Fire Marshal that the applicant would comply with deficiency 27 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.

28. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the applicant advised the Board that he would be requesting a variance from the provisions of life safety code section 5-2.1.3 as it relates to a proposed accessible entry to the right to the main entry of this facility.  Specifically, this area currently maintains a “one in twelve” slope from the sidewalk to a door which will be moved slightly back.  There's also a “one in twenty” slope on inside of the door because the building follows the curb line and slopes approximately 18 inches over 90 feet.
	
After great deal of discussion between the parties and the Commissioners, it was agreed that the applicant would further explore the options available to address this deficiency and to review these options with the Providence Fire Marshal.  The Board shall maintain this file as an open file in order to either review a new plan of action developed by the applicant and Providence Fire Marshal and/or grant a variance.

29. During the July 11, 2000 hearing on this matter, the applicant originally requested relief from complying with the latest water pressure requirements for this facility. Specifically, the applicant sought relief from increasing the water pressure of the sprinkler and standpipe systems by installing a water pump and backup system. Eventually, the applicant advised the Board that he would comply with deficiency 29 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal.
	
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 applicant's 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.
	
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.  In the event of complete, timely and continued compliance with the full Decision of the Board, the above cited variances shall be deemed to 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 of use or occupancy mandating review under a separate classification of the Fire Code or a revision of the above-cited classification.  Such changes in use or occupancy of this facility, or failure to continually comply with the Board's 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 of variances granted under the original use or occupancy are void and this facility shall be reviewed under the newly created use or occupancy.
	
The applicant may appeal the Board's decision, within thirty days of the mailing date of this Decision, by commencing an action against the State Fire Marshal in 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) }.