The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on December 7, 2004 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame, Coutu and Filippi were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Richard Silva and Steven Moise of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Coutu and seconded by Commissioner Newbrook to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
The Board finds that the proposed facility is a three (3) story building fully sprinklered with A1, A3, B and S2 use groups.  The Board further finds that this facility is a multi-use building intended to accommodate academic programs, faculty offices and performances.  The Board finds that the Applicant seeks a temporary certificate of occupancy in order to allow for the faculty and staff to move into the new space before the end of the calendar 2004 year.  The Board further finds that all major life safety systems have been provided by the Applicant and that the Applicant is seeking authorization of the Providence Fire Marshal to approve the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for this facility.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1. In light of the construction of this facility along with the completion of the sprinkler and fire alarm coverage throughout this facility, the Board hereby grants the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office the authority to approve the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for this facility.  In granting this relief, the Board directs the Applicant to provide whatever additional safeguards are deemed necessary by the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office during the period of the temporary certificate of occupancy.

2. During the December 7, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that, for the most part, the Applicant was able to provide sprinkler and/or heat detector coverage in the spaces above the suspended ceiling where the height of the space exceeds 24 inches.  However, the Board was advised that in parts of two (2) corridors in the proximity of rooms 110 and 121 on drawing A1.03, it is not possible to comply with the required detection and/or suppression.  In these particular areas, the ceiling space is completely filled with ducts and piping and maintenance of heat detectors or sprinkler heads would be extremely difficult and the function of these devices would be extremely limited.  In light of the above, the Applicant is requesting a variance from the above requirements in order to provide alternative detection at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal in these areas.  

Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the above requirement in order to allow the Applicant to provide alternative detection in these areas at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office prior to the issuance of a full certificate of occupancy for this facility.
	
3. During the December 7, 2004 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from the provisions of section 12-2.5.6.5 in order to be allowed to maintain the proposed alternative tread design for the theater of this facility.  Upon review of this design, the Board noted that strict code compliance could create a potential tripping hazard.  Accordingly, the Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of section 12-2.5.6.5 in order to allow the Applicant to maintain alternative tread design as proposed to the Providence Fire Marshal’s Office.

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)].