The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on February 15, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Pearson and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Hawthorne of the Cranston Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this is a newly constructed masonry block complex consisting of four (4) units (A through D) with each separated by two (2) hour construction.  The Board further finds that the construction plans for this complex were approved by the Cranston Fire Marshals Office, on July 15, 2004.  The Board further finds that the plan review approval was based upon representations made, by the Applicants engineer, that the building was designed under business occupancy with incidental storage.  The Board finds that Unit D, of the complex, had a proposed mezzanine level.  The Board finds the section 38.2.4.5, of the business chapter of the code, allows for one means of egress from a mezzanine provided that the common path of travel does not exceed seventy-five (75) feet.
	The Board finds that the originally proposed mezzanine level met the fire code definition of a mezzanine because it did not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the floor immediately below it.  The Board finds that the Applicant made a mistake during the construction of this unit and expanded the mezzanine to almost twice the approved size.  Specifically, the Applicant extended the mezzanine by approximately fourteen (14) feet in length.  The Board finds that, under the code, this mistake effectively converted the proposed mezzanine to a second story level in this unit.
	The Board finds that once the new second story was created in this unit, an approved second means of egress was required.  The Board further finds that there is an exception, in the Code, to the above requirement for a second approved means of egress.  The Board finds that the above Code exception is to fully sprinkler the building.
	The Board further finds that, in light of the Applicants deviation from the original mezzanine plan for this facility, the Cranston Fire Marshals Office has refused to approve, and officially authorize, the issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy for this facility, by the Cranston Building Official.  The Board finds that the reasons for the Cranston Fire Marshals refusal are outlined in a February 8, 2004 letter, from Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Hawthorne to Rossi Electric, incorporated herein by reference.
	The Board further finds that the Applicant filed a request for variance following one of the recommended options outlined in the Cranston Fire Marshals February 8, 2005 letter.  The Board further finds that, by letter dated February 9, 2005, the Applicants representative admitted that a mistake had been made and requested an expedited hearing pursuant to Board rule 6-2-3.  The Board finds that, in the February 9, 2005 application cover letter, the Applicant sought approval of the immediate issuance of temporary certificates of occupancy for units C and D conditioned upon the Applicant eventually providing this complex with domestically-supplied sprinkler coverage and not occupying the remaining two (2) units until the sprinkler coverage was complete.  The Board hereby incorporates the February 9, 2005 letter from the Applicants representative, to the Chairman, by reference.
	The Board finds that, during the February 15, 2005 hearing on this matter, the Applicant significantly increased his proposed additional fire protection for this complex.  Specifically, the Applicant advised the Board that he would install a full coverage, NFPA 13, commercial sprinkler system in this complex.  The Applicant further agreed to upgrade the fire alarm coverage in this complex by installing a municipally-connected fire alarm box.  The Board finds that the individual units in this complex would only have required local fire alarm systems and that such an approved local fire alarm system had already been installed in Unit D.  The Board further finds that, during the hearing, the Applicant limited his temporary occupancy request to Unit D and further advised the Board that the subject second level, of Unit D would maintain a limited occupancy of two (2) people until the new sprinkler system was installed to the satisfaction of the Cranston Fire Marshals Office.
	In light of the currently installed local fire alarm system, the voluntary limitation of occupancy of the second level of Unit D, the non-hazardous nature of the proposed operation of Unit D, along with the proposed future commercial sprinkler coverage and municipally connected fire alarm system, the Board finds that the Applicants plan provides the occupants of Unit D with ample protection from fire.  The Board further finds that the Applicant should have reviewed the fourteen (14) foot extension of the mezzanine with the Cranston Fire Marshal before construction.  However, in light of the current and proposed safeguards, the Board finds that there is no legitimate reason to deny the Applicant immediate temporary or permanent occupancy of Unit D conditioned upon a time variance to make all of the above permanent improvements.
	However, the Board was advised, by the Cranston Fire Marshals Office, that the Office would refuse to approve the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for this facility, even if so authorized by the Board.  The Board was advised that this position was waken because of the absence of sprinkler coverage and therefore was not in compliance with the fire code.  In light of this new development, the Board attempted to accommodate the Cranston Fire Marshals Offices concerns as to any potential liability by granting the Applicant a time variance to install the proposed commercial sprinkler system with municipal connection thereby bringing this facility into full compliance with the code during this period.  In light of the full current compliance status, the Board notes that the Cranston Fire Marshals Office can now approve the issuance of a full certificate of occupancy for Unit D in this complex.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
1.	In light of the above findings, the non-combustible construction of this complex, the currently installed local fire alarm system, the voluntary limitation of occupancy of the second level of Unit D, the non-hazardous nature of the proposed operation of Unit D, along with the proposed future commercial sprinkler coverage and municipally connected fire alarm system, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of this Decision in order to provide this entire complex with approved commercial sprinkler coverage and to further provide the standpipe of the sprinkler system with municipal connection.  The Board further grants a variance to allow the Applicant to connect the fire alarm systems in the other units of this complex to the master box.
Accordingly, this facility is now deemed to be in full compliance with the State Fire Code during the one hundred and twenty (120) day period of the time variance granted by the Board.  In light of the full current compliance status, the Board notes that the Cranston Fire Marshals Office can now approve the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Unit D in this complex.
	During the hearing, the Cranston Fire Marshals Office raised the question as to the need for installation of all required major fire protection systems prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy.  In response, the Board notes that a Board authorized time variance, for the installation of any required system, temporarily suspends this code requirement and allows the building to be considered in full compliance for purposes of the issuance of any certificate of occupancy.  This is the case whether the requested certificate is classified as either temporary or full.
	By way of further clarification to the parties, after the certificate of occupancy has been issued and the above one hundred twenty (120) day grace period has expired, if it is believed that the Applicant has failed to fully comply with the conditions of the above relief (full sprinkler installation and municipal connection) the Cranston Fire Marshal, in accordance with his statutory duties, would then conduct a re-inspection to confirm non-compliance and, if there is a determination of non-compliance, issue a new notice of violation advising the Applicant of the daily statutory penalties along with his appeal rights.

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
	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)].