This case was originally scheduled for expedited hearing on November 25, 2003. At that time, the parties agreed that the Board would conduct an onsite review of the facility on December 9, 2003. The Parties further agreed that the University and the State Fire Marshal would secure an independent engineering analysis of the capacity and safety of the egress systems within this facility. 

The scheduled on-site review of the complex was conducted on December 9, 2003 and the Chairman and several Fire Board Commissioners toured the entire structure. The Board thereupon reaffirmed its original directive for an engineering analysis to be performed by an agreed-upon independent engineer. While this third party analysis was being performed, the Board further directed the University and the State Fire Marshal to address as many of the listed deficiencies as possible. Finally, the Board advised the parties that the next hearing would be scheduled once the third party engineer’s report was finalized and the University and the Fire Marshal had an opportunity to address the recommendations.

While the original case was pending, the Applicant requested the Board to consider a new separate issue. Specifically, the Applicant proposed to present a one-time “Home Show” in the complex between March 26 and 28, 2004. This hearing was scheduled for March 16, 2004 and the Board approved the request, with conditions, in a Decision dated March 19, 2004 in file number 030389-A. 

The above-captioned case was most recently scheduled for hearing on April 27, 2003 at 1:00 P.M. At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Evans, Coutu, Burlingame, Filippi, O’Connell and Pearson were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief Nathaniel Barrington of the Kingston Fire District, Chief of Inspections William Howe and Investigator Kevin Murphy of the State Fire Marshal’s Office. Several other members of the fire service assisted in this case. 

A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the dissenting vote of Commissioner Wahlberg. Commissioner Burlingame abstained from this vote in light of his capacity as the Board-designated mediator between the University and the fire service while this matter was pending before the Board. 

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of an April 23, 2004 inspection report compiled by the State Fire Marshal’s Office. The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant, the State and Kingston Fire Marshal’s Offices during the hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the April 23, 2004 inspection 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, 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. During the April 27, 2004 hearing on this matter the Board voted to approve and accept the April 13, 2004 “Final Life Safety Analysis, URI Ryan Center, Kingston, RI”, The vote further approved the requested relief under the April 23, 2004 State Fire Marshal’s Report as outlined herein.  The vote further authorized the State Fire Marshal to approve the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the low hazard use of this facility as outlined below.  Finally, the vote directed that, if the operations of the facility were to be expanded, in the future, to increase the operational hazard above the “low hazard” designation, the Applicant shall complete the sprinkler coverage in this complex and specifically cover the entire “Bowl” or “Arena” area before the increase in hazard is allowed by the authority having jurisdiction. 

For purposes of this Decision, the term “Low Hazard” shall be understood to mean, in the Arena Area (on the playing floor), a sustained steady fire with a heat release rate of less than 15,000 kilowatts during an exhibition event when the seating is not occupied. Within the main concourse, “Low Hazard” is defined as a sustained steady state of fire with a heat release rate of less than 5,000 kilowatts controlled by the automatic sprinkler protection. These were the definitions outlined in the “Final Life Safety Analysis” as approved by the Board. Any question, or request for interpretation, covering the intent or meaning of the above-adopted definitions shall be exclusively addressed to the Board.
	
In light of the Board’s acceptance of the above “Final Life Safety Analysis”, and in light of the previously-granted building code variances, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 13.1.6 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain two levels above the level of exit discharge. 

2. The Board hereby grants the Applicant a time variance of 120 days, from the date of this Decision, for the Applicant to correct deficiency 2 at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal’s Office. Specifically, the cited grills are currently not operational and the Applicant shall either remove the grills, or permanently weld them in place, during the above time period.

3. In light of the Board’s acceptance of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, the Board hereby finds that deficiency 3 is no longer a violation of the State Fire Code as it now applies to this facility.

4. In light of the Board’s acceptance of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, the Board hereby finds that deficiency 4 is no longer a violation of the State Fire Code as it now applies to this facility.

5. In light of the Board’s acceptance of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, the Board hereby finds that deficiency 5 is no longer a violation of the State Fire Code as it now applies to this facility.

6. In light of the Board’s acceptance of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, the Board hereby finds that deficiency 6 is no longer a violation of the State Fire Code as it now applies to this facility.

7. In light of the Board’s acceptance of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, the Board hereby finds that deficiency 7 is no longer be a violation of the State Fire Code as it now applies to this facility. However, the Board specifically directs the building management, as the responsible party, to maintain all four (4) exits in this facility unobstructed at all times. Failure of the management to comply with this condition shall result in a specific violation of the code and further be cause for the Board to reconsider its above findings and explore alternative fire safety measures to permanently address this issue. 	

8. In light of the Board’s acceptance of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, the Board hereby finds that deficiency 8 is no longer a violation of the State Fire Code as it now applies to this facility.

9. In light of the Board’s acceptance of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, the Board hereby finds that deficiency 9 is no longer a violation of the State Fire Code as it now applies to this facility.

10. The Board hereby accepts the existing fuel diesel tank for the emergency generator as being in compliance with the stated exception to NFPA 37, section 6.3.2.2. as outlined in the “Final Life Safety Analysis”. 

11. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 11, as outlined in its April 27, 2004 “Response to the State Fire Marshal’s Inspection Report for the Ryan Center”, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal within 120 days of the date of this Decision.

12. The Board hereby authorizes the State Fire Marshal to approve the issuance of a certificate of occupancy limited to the “low hazard use” of this facility. However, the Board further directs that, if the operations of the facility were proposed to be expanded, in the future, to increase the operational hazard above the “low hazard” designation, the Applicant shall complete the sprinkler coverage in this complex and specifically cover the entire “Bowl” or “Arena” area before the increase in hazard is allowed by the authority having jurisdiction. The Board shall maintain this file as an open file in the event the Applicant or the State Fire Marshal have specific questions, or need to address additional related issues, in the future. 

13. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 13, in accordance with the recommendations of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal within 120 days of the date of this Decision.

14. The Board hereby directs the Applicant to correct deficiency 14, in accordance with the recommendations of the “Final Life Safety Analysis”, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the State Fire Marshal within 120 days of the date of this Decision.

15. The Board hereby grants a variance to allow the Applicant to maintain the unlisted speakers in this facility. Accordingly, if these speakers are replaced in the future, the Applicant shall replace them with fully compliant speakers.

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 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. ( 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 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 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 Board’s 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)].