The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 15, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Acting Chairman Richard and Commissioners Pearson, Newbrook, Burlingame, Coutu, and O’Connell were present.  The fire service was represented by Chief of Inspections William Howe and Deputy State Fire Marshal Kevin Murphy of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  After an initial series of motions to approve and/or deny components of the Decision below, a final motion was made by Commissioner Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Coutu to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
During the July 15, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that a small portion of the corridor on the third floor of this facility has one inch less than the required six-foot clear corridor dimension.  Specifically, this deficiency exists along approximately 120 inches of the third floor corridor.  The 5’11” clear unobstructed width within this corridor cannot be corrected due to high construction tolerances and structural members creating this deficiency.

The Board further finds that on the first floor of this facility the Applicant has individually encased the structural supporting steel because the first floor supports two or more levels above.  The Board further finds that on the second and third floors of this facility the applicant has enclosed the steel utilizing common rated assemblies.  The Fire Marshal has requested an interpretation as to whether the general enclosure of the steel cross-bracing located on the second and third floors, within rated assemblies, qualifies as enclosure within the membrane protection in accordance with NFPA 220.  The Board further finds that both the State Building Code and the newly produced NFPA 5000 Building Code allows for this protection method.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of RI General Laws Section 23-28.10-1 and its referenced standards of NFPA 101 Chapter 12 Section 12-2.3.4 in order to allow approximately 120 inches of the third floor corridor to be maintained at 5’11” clear width.  This variance is granted on the basis of structural hardship in light of the Applicant’s representation that the existing structural members of this facility would not allow the expansion of this corridor by an additional inch.  The Board notes the objection of the Deputy State Fire Marshal.
	
2.  It is the interpretation of the Board that the protection of the steel cross-bracing located on the second and third floors of this facility, as described by the Applicant, qualifies as approved membrane protection pursuant to NFPA 220.  Accordingly, the Applicant’s method of protection of the steel cross-bracing, on the second and third floors, is an approved method.

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)].