The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 8, 2007 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Pearson, Filippi, OConnell, Richard, Jasparro, Preiss and Jackson were present.  Commissioner Blackburn recused himself from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Captain James Waterman of the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioners Jackson and Jasparro to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 8, 2007 hearing on this matter, through the testimonies and documents presented, the Board was advised and finds that the subject facility, the Unistructure Building, is a mixed-use facility.  It is located on Bryants campus in Smithfield, Rhode Island.  The Board further finds that the building consists of business use (classrooms and offices) and assembly use (dining hall, auditorium and storage space).
	The Board further finds that the Unistructure has an area of approximately 309,211 square feet.  The Board further finds that the building is two (2) stories above grade and a partial story below grade.  The Board further finds that this building was constructed during the late sixties or early seventies.  The Board further finds that the construction type of the building appears to be at a minimum type 1B construction as defined in the RI State Building Code.  The Board further finds that the building is equipped with a municipally connected fire alarm system, emergency lights and portable fire extinguishers.
	The Board finds that the University is planning on upgrading the existing municipally connected fire alarm system in accordance with section 13 of the RI Uniform Fire Code and further plans to install an automatic sprinkler system throughout the building in accordance with NFPA 13, 2002 edition.  The Board further finds that the automatic sprinkler system may not be required for this particular occupancy.  The use of that system as part of the upgraded fire alarm system would elevate the status of such sprinkler coverage so incorporated to that of a required system.
	The Board further finds that due to the large size of the facility, asbestos abatement issues and the need for the building to remain occupied year round, the University is seeking a time variance to upgrade the automatic fire alarm system and to install the automatic sprinkler system.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has proposed to upgrade the fire protection systems over a ten-year period beginning in the summer of 2007.  The Board further finds that the Applicant is requesting to maintain the status of this building as a fully sprinklered building in order to take advantage of exemptions within the code such as increased travel distance, corridor ratings, etc.
	The Board finds that the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office has prioritized the installation of the sprinkler and alarm coverage as follows.  The first priority shall be provided to the means of egress.  The second priority shall be provided to all places of assembly.  The third priority shall be provided to the storage area and the mechanical areas and other hazards use groups.  The fourth priority shall be provided to the vertical openings.  The fifth priority shall be provided to the classrooms and the sixth priority shall be provided to the office spaces within this complex.
	Finally, the Board notes that while the particular classification of this building would not bring it within the high-rise standards, the total square footage of the building would make it a comparable project to the retrofit sprinkler projects in all the high rise buildings.  As such, the Board notes that the RI Uniform Fire Code currently permits high rise buildings with such a square footage to phase in sprinkler installation over a twelve (12) year period.
	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, shall be understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in the State Fire Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (the State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	The Board hereby grants a time variance until September 30, 2016, in order to allow the Applicant to phase in the full sprinkler coverage of the Unistructure, with an installation of the systems at an average of 209,000 square feet of the building space per year.  In granting this relief, the Board directs the Applicant and the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office to develop a plan of action which prioritizes the means of egress, the assembly spaces and the hazard areas and subsequently addresses the vertical openings in the classroom spaces and the office spaces of this complex.  The Board notes that the Applicant has provided it with a chart for illustrative purposes only, demonstrating one possible solution for completing the work.  The chart, as outlined in the April 4, 2007 letter from the Vice President of Business Affairs, would be an approved plan of action.  The Board notes that a comparable plan of action acceptable to the Smithfield Fire Marshals Office would also be approved.
In light of the above time variance, the Board hereby deems this building to be considered fully sprinklered for the purposes of utilizing the sprinklered building exemptions within the code, such as increased travel distance, corridor rating requirements, etc.  The Board notes that since many of the above reductions involve the egress systems, the highest priorities shall be given to the sprinklering of the egress systems within this complex.

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 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)].