As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on July 25, 2017 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 and Commissioners Richard, Pearson, Sylvester, Booth and Davison.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Deputy State Fire Marshal Michael Macaruso and Acting State Fire Marshal James Gumbley of the State Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Timothy Wensus.
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 Paul M. DePace, P.E. (authorized representative) of 60 Tootell Road, Kingston, RI dated July 19, 2017.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  170097 opened on July 20, 2017.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on July 25, 2017 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	Prior to the commencement of the hearing, it was determined that the Applicant was not present and had failed to provide a letter of representation for Jensen Hughes as required pursuant to Fire Safety Code section 6.  The Board found that Jensen Hughes has been involved in this project for many months, had previously been before the Board regarding this project in Appeal  160118, and had recently represented the project for the Applicant before the State Building Code Standards Committee on July 13, 2017 on these same issues.  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Davison to waive a written letter of representation to allow Jensen Hughes to appear on behalf of the Applicant.  The motion passed unanimously.
6.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, an initial motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester to grant certain relief however no action was taken on that motion due to the lack of a second.  A subsequent motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioner Richard to grant the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 5 to 1 vote with Commissioner Sylvester voting in opposition.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  160118 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  170097 dated July 19, 2017 and filed on July 20, 2017.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the July 25, 2017 hearing as exhibits:

1.	Applicants drawings A100  A105 [6 pages] dated July 7, 2017.

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 Decision below corresponds with the July 19, 2017 Plan of action report compiled by the Applicant.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the State Fire Marshals Office during the July 25, 2017 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 19, 2017 Plan of action 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 building is a proposed  6-story multiple/mixed occupancy (business, industrial & storage) that will consist of approximately one hundred ninety thousand six hundred (190,600) square feet.
3.	The building will be of Type II (222) construction and will have a compliant fire alarm system and will be provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
4.	The Board finds that relief from the comparable provisions of the State Building Code [SBC-1] was granted by the State Building Code Standards Committee on July 13, 2017.
5.	There is no objection by the State Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	CONSTRUCTION: The Board hereby approves the Applicants request relating to the provisions of RILSC section 8.2.3 and NFPA 220 (2010) section 5.1.3 by allowing the proposed performance-based design option of utilizing multiple fire resistance rating materials on a single structural component.
2.	STAIR DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA: The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of RILSC section 37.4.5.2.1, Table 7.2.2.2.1.1(a) and 7.2.2.3.2 by allowing the proposed fourteen foot (14) stair height between Levels 2 & 3 and 3 & 4 of the monumental spiral stair.
3.	AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS: The Board hereby continues this variance request without a finding and directs that this file may be reopened if necessary in order to allow the Applicant to return in the future should additional relief be required for this issue.

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: Fire Safety Code, 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: Fire Safety Code, 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: Fire Safety Code, 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:  Fire Safety Code, 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: Fire Safety Code, 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)].