As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on February 2, 2016 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-Chairman Blackburn and Commissioners Booth, Filippi, Pearson, Richard and Thornton.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals Kenneth Botelho and James Bellamy of the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Raymond Gomes and Jason Grover.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under R.I.G.L. Chapter 23-28.3, entitled Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Jon Savage (owner) of 1080 Main Street, Pawtucket, RI dated December 22, 2015.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  150138 opened on December 22, 2015.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on February 2, 2016 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 Richard and seconded by Vice-Chairman Blackburn to deny the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 6 to 1 vote with Commissioner Thornton voting in opposition.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  150138 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  150138 dated December 22, 2015 and filed on December 22, 2015.
2.	East Providence Fire Marshals Office Plan Review Report dated December 16, 2015.
3.	Letter of authorization for Raymond Gomes and Jason Grover from Jonathan Savage dated January 26, 2016.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the February 2, 2016 hearing as exhibits:

1.	Applicants photographs (4).
2.	Applicants Renovated Floor Plan  A1.0 dated January 15, 2016.
3.	Field Report letter from Camera  ONeill Consulting Engineers dated January 10, 2016.

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 December 16, 2015 plan review report compiled by the East Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the East Providence Fire Marshals Office during the February 2, 2016 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the December 16, 2015 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 Board finds that the building is proposed to be used for general storage with incidental business and/or industrial use and is in excess of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet.
3.	The Board finds that the Applicant has not shown that the exterior wall of the original building, now separating Unit 002 and Unit 003 (as shown on drawing A1.0), is an approved fire wall.  That finding, in conjunction with the combustible roof structure of the entire building has not been shown to provide an approved two (2) hour fire rated separation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby denies the Applicants request for a variance from the provisions of RIFC section 13.3.2.27.2 to omit an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout the facility.

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 6-2-22).
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 6-2-23.)  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 6-2-24).
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 6-2-25).
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.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18).  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].