The above-captioned case was originally scheduled for hearing on March 9, 2010 at 1:00 P.M. and the initial Decision in this matter was mailed on May 13, 2010.  By letter dated May 18, 2010, the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office requested a review of the original record.  The requested review was subsequently conducted by the Chairman and the Executive Director.  An Amended Decision, replacing the original Decision, was thereupon issued pursuant to Board Rule 6-2-12. 
By letter dated June 3, 2010 the Applicant advised that the plans for this project were submitted to the East Greenwich Fire Marshals office and denied in writing.  Accordingly, the Applicant requested that the matter be re-scheduled for hearing on June 29, 2010 due to the fact that Picerne Military Housing, the tenant, was unable to attend any other hearings in the near future because of extensive business travel outside the State.  Notice of the June 29, 2010 re-scheduled hearing was sent to all of the parties on June 10, 2010.  
The above-captioned case was thereupon most recently scheduled for hearing on June 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM.  At that time, Acting Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Dias, Walker, Richard, Blackburn, Jackson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections Scott Caron of the State Fire Marshals Office. Chief of Inspections Caron was standing in for Marshal Hughes of the East Greenwich Fire Marshals Office who was unable to attend the hearing.  A motion was made by Commissioner Preiss and seconded by Commissioner Walker.  The motion passed with Commissioner Blackburn abstaining.
FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based upon the documentation presented and the testimony taken during the initial March 9, 2010 hearing on this matter, the Board initially made the following findings of fact.  The Board found that the subject facility is three (3) stories in height without a basement.  The Board further found that the facility was constructed in 2007 in accordance with the Rhode Island Life Safety and Rhode Island Building Codes.  The Board further found that the facility received certificates of occupancy as tenants were acquired for the space.  The Board found that the building was fully occupied except for a portion on the second floor which remains vacant and unfinished subject to future approvals.  The Board found that each story was approximately 15,000 square feet in area.  The Board further found that the facility was constructed in accordance with Type II (000) standards.  The Board further found that the facility is fully sprinkled and alarmed in accordance with current state fire and building codes.  The Board further found that there are three (3) exit stairs in the building (east, center and west stairs).
	The Board found that the Applicants lessee (Picerne Military Housing) is a provider of housing for the U.S. Army and currently leases and occupies the entire third floor and approximately fifty percent (50) of the second floor of this facility.  The Board found that the third floor occupancy provides access to all three (3) exit stairs through compliant egress paths.  The Board further found that the second floor tenancy (approximately 7,000 square feet in area) provides access to two (2) stairways and that the remainder of the second floor is currently vacant and available.  The Board found that the first floor is occupied by other tenants.  	
	The Board found that the tenant had initially requested that the owner determine whether it is permissible to remove a portion of the west stair enclosure at the third and second floor and to replace this with a glass enclosure at the second level.  The Board was advised by the Applicants code consultant that the subject arrangement, as originally envisioned, would comply with the Building Code but not the State Fire Code.
	The Board found that the owner originally proposed to construct a draft stop at the second floor west stair enclosure where the wall was to be partially removed.  The Board found that the draft stop was proposed to be approximately eighteen inches (18) high and additional sprinkler heads were proposed to be located on the occupied side of the draft stop.  The Board further found that the west stairway enclosure walls were proposed to remain at the first floor and doors allowing access by the first floor tenant to the stairs were proposed to be removed and replaced by fire complying infill construction and new exit doors providing access directly to the exterior would be provided.  The Board originally noted that the west stair was proposed to serve only one tenant from the second and third floors.
During the most recent hearing on this matter, on June 29, 2010, the Board was advised by the Applicants representatives that they had met with the fire marshal and reviewed two alternative plans for installing the requested convenience stairs in a manner that would be fully compliance with the fire code.  These plans were identified as Option A and Option B. 
Both options involved the use of an approved fire door and assembly in conjunction with an open area protected by an approved rated fire shutter system that would release automatically with the activation of the fire alarm system, smoke detector and/or pull station.  In Option A, the rated fire shutter closed all of the way from the ceiling to the floor.  In Option B, the rated fire shutter closed to the top of a rated half wall. (See the attached documentation for specifics).
Chief of Inspections Caron advised the Board that he had reviewed both options and deemed them to be in compliance with the requirements of the fire code.  The Board hereby agrees with the State Fire Marshals Chief of Inspections and finds that both Option A and Option B are approved avenues of full compliance under the State Fire Safety Code. 


CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	 The Board hereby confirms the opinion of the Chief of Inspections and finds that both the attached Option A and Option B are approved avenues of full compliance under the State Fire Safety Code.  Accordingly, the Applicant may employ either option to bring the convenience stairway into full compliance with the fire code.  In light of the Applicants current decision to fully comply with the fire code, the prior decisions in this case are hereby rescinded.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	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).
	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).  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).
	The Applicant may appeal the Boards Amended 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)].