As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted by Zoom webinar on Tuesday, July 28, 2020 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review [hereinafter the Board], pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws [RIGL] section 23-28.3-5 and Executive Order.

	Participating at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook, Vice-Chairman Blackburn and Commissioners Pearson, Sylvester, Booth, Thornton, ODonnell and Muto.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Scott Mooney of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Sheri Griffin, Virginia Branch, Brian Kelleher, Lucie Searle, Brian Boisvert and Mike Westgate.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under RIGL 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 Sheri Griffin (authorized representative) of Farm Fresh RI, 1005 Main Street -  8130, Pawtucket, RI dated June 16, 2020.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  2020035 was opened on June 19, 2020.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted by Zoom webinar on July 28, 2020 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After consideration of the application, the testimony of the witnesses and of the entire record presented to the Board, and after carefully considering such information, a motion was made by Commissioner Pearson and seconded by Commissioners Sylvester, Booth and ODonnell to DENY the Applicant the relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on an 8 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  2020035 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  2020035 dated June 16, 2020 and filed on June 19, 2020.
a.	Drawings SKE12 and SKE13 (2 pages) dated April 20, 2020
b.	Email to the Board from Mike Westgate dated June 8, 2020 forwarding Providence Fire Marshals Office Inspection Report [email] dated June 8, 2020.
2.	Zoom webinar invitation  98486908089 dated July 21, 2020.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the July 28, 2020 hearing as exhibits:

1.	None.

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 Findings of Fact:

1.	The Decision below corresponds with the June 8, 2020 inspection report compiled by the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the Providence Fire Marshals Office during the July 28, 2020 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the June 8, 2020 inspection 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 new multiple/mixed use occupancy consisting primarily of storage and mercantile uses, operating as a farmers market [hereinafter the market] with approximately thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of tenant space provided.  The reported use of the market is currently limited to four (4) hours on Saturdays for approximately six (6) months of the year, however this is subject to expansion by the owner in the future.
3.	The building is of non-combustible construction, has an approved (with deficiencies) fire alarm system and is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
4.	The maximum occupant load of the facility has been stated by the owner at four hundred fifty-six (456) persons.
5.	The Applicant has requested relief from the requirement set forth in RILSC section 9.6.3.11 [sic] of installing smoke detectors in the egress path/Winter Farmers Market (Rm 107) and Gathering Space (Rm 110) to prevent likely nuisance calls due to operable garage doors and high bay ceiling fans.  The Applicant further requests the Board to make a determination as to whether these spaces are correctly classified by the AHJ as corridors or should be considered as intervening spaces.
a.	The Board first finds that the pertinent code section applicable in this appeal is RILSC section 9.6.2.11(1) which requires smoke detectors in common corridors.
i.	The Board finds that the term corridor is not defined in the RILSC and that section 3.1 provides that [w]here terms are not defined in this chapter or within another chapter, they shall be defined using their ordinary accepted meanings within the context which they are used.  Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, shall be the source for the ordinary accepted meaning .
ii.	The Board finds through the Applicants testimony that these corridors range from 16 to 28 in width and 156 to 18 in ceiling height; that located within these spaces are high bay ceiling fans and eight (8) 10x10 garage doors that open to the exterior; that the maximum travel distance to an exit is approximately one hundred thirty (130) feet; and, that these spaces will be utilized for occupant egress access.
iii.	Accordingly, the Board finds that the two spaces pertinent to this appeal, Winter Farmers Market (Rm 107) and Gathering Space (Rm 110) have been correctly classified by the AHJ as corridors.
&8195;
b.	The Board further finds that in the application for variance, the Applicant initially sought to replace the required smoke detectors with heat detectors; however during the course of the hearing that request has been modified to eliminate all detection in its entirety based upon the automatic sprinkler protection provided in these spaces and to prevent likely nuisance calls due to operable garage doors [wind, dust and moisture when the garage doors are open] and high bay ceiling fans.
i.	The Board is cognizant of the provisions of section 9.6.1.12 which provides that [i]n locations where heat detectors and/or smoke detectors are required, the type and/or temperature rating of the heat detector or smoke detector may be modified if the type or temperature rating of the device is unsuitable due to environmental or structural conditions unique to that location or where multiple nuisance alarms have occurred, subject to the approval of the AHJ. [Emphasis added].
ii.	The Board further is cognizant of the provisions of section 9.7.1.4 which provides that [i]n areas protected by automatic sprinklers, automatic heat-detection devices required by other sections of this Code shall not be required.
iii.	Accordingly, the Board finds that justification for the elimination of smoke detectors in the two spaces pertinent to this appeal, Winter Farmers Market (Rm 107) and Gathering Space (Rm 110) has not been shown and is merely speculative in nature at the time of the instant appeal.
6.	The Board acknowledges the objection by the Providence Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief requested herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

References to NFPA shall mean the National Fire Protection Association; references to the Rhode Island Fire Code [RIFC] shall mean NFPA 1, (2015 edition) as incorporated by reference and amended by 450-RICR-00-00-7; and, references to the Rhode Island Life Safety Code [RILSC] shall mean NFPA 101, (2015 edition) as incorporated by reference and amended by 450-RICR-00-00-8.

1.	FIRE ALARM SYSTEM: The Board hereby DENIES the Applicant a variance from the provisions of RILSC section 9.6.2.11(1) and directs the Applicant to install the required corridor smoke detectors, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshals Office.  In consideration of this holding, the Board directs that in the event that nuisance false alarms be identified in the future due to the above factors, the Providence Fire Marshal's Office is authorized to utilize the provisions of RILSC sections 9.6.1.12 and 9.7.1.4 to address 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 constitutes a final order of the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review as set forth in RIGL section 42-35-12 and 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 [FSC] section 450-RICR-00-00-1.7.2(V)].
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: FSC section 450-RICR-00-00-1.7.2(W)].  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 FSC or a revision of the above-cited classification.  [See: FSC section 450-RICR-00-00-1.7.2(X)].
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 RIGL section 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:  FSC section 450-RICR-00-00-1.7.2(Y)].
4.	In accordance with RIGL section 23-28.3-5(e), any person who violates a final order of the Board may be subject to prosecution in the District Court with possible imprisonment for a term not exceeding one (1) year, or fined not more than one thousand dollars (1000) for each offense.
5.	In accordance with RIGL section 42-35-12, 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: FSC section 450-RICR-00-00-1.7.2(R)].  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [See: RIGL section 42-35-15(c)].