A hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on Tuesday, August 20, 2024 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review [hereinafter the Board], pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws [RIGL] sections 23-28.3-5, 42-35-9 and 42-46-3. 
 
In attendance at the hearing were the following: 
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Blackburn, Vice-Chairperson Thornton and Commissioners ODonnell, Spaziani, Horan & Mancini. 
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION [AHJ]: State Fire Marshal Susan Hawksley and Fire Chief Scott Gavitt of the Exeter  1 Volunteer Fire Department. 
APPELLANT: Gordon Preiss and Matthew Preiss. 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq. 
 
TRAVEL OF THE CASE 
 
1.	This is an Application for Appeal submitted 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 submitted by Gordon Preiss (authorized representative of RI Grows) of 12 Pondview Avenue, Westerly, RI dated July 8, 2024. 
3.	The Application was processed by the Board and Appeal  2024114 was filed on July 8, 2024. 
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on August 20, 2024 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 reviewing such information, a motion was made by Vice-Chairperson Thornton and seconded by Commissioner Spaziani to grant the Appellant the approval requested, i.e., the use of a performance-based design (RILSC Chapter 5) in lieu of two (2) specific prescriptive code requirements [sections 42.2.6 and 7.3.2.2].  The motion failed on a 3 to 3 vote with Commissioners ODonnell, Horan and Mancini voting in opposition. 
6.	A subsequent motion was made by Commissioner ODonnell and seconded by Commissioner Mancini to allow the file to be reopened in the future if additional relief is required for the completion of this project. 
 
RECORD OF THE CASE 
 
The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  2024114 and are pertinent to the decision rendered: 
 
1.	Appeal Application  FVA-24-114 submitted on July 8, 2024 and filed on July 8, 2024. 
a.	Attached Plan of Action with drawings (121 pages). 
b.	Letter of authorization for G. W. Preiss and Son from Frederick Laist dated July 3, 2024. 
2.	Exeter  1 Fire Marshals Office [partial] Plan Review Report dated January 23, 2024 and revised on July 1, 2024. 
 
EXHIBITS 
 
The following documents were presented at the August 20, 2024 hearing as exhibits: 
 
1.	Upon a motion of Commissioner Thornton and seconded by Commissioner ODonnell the Board unanimously voted to waive RIFC section 1.10.4.3 and allow the admission of the Appellants modified performance-based design documents (10 pages) dated August 19, 2024 and received August 20, 2024. 
 
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 determination below corresponds with the July 1, 2024 [partial] plan review report compiled by the Exeter  1 Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Appellant and the Exeter  1 Fire Marshals Office during the August 20, 2024 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the July 1, 2024 [partial] plan review report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings relating to this report, such as correction of a deficiency by the Appellant, shall be noted herein. 
2.	The project involves a proposed agricultural complex consisting of two separate but connected buildings with a combined footprint of 1,189,116 sq. ft. that will be utilized for the growth, packaging and shipping of tomatoes. 
3.	The Board finds that the two design issues presented for review are RILSC Section 7.3.2.2 [Measurement of Means of Egress] and Section 42.2.6 [Travel Distance to Exits]. 
4.	The Board further finds that upon a [partial] plan review denial by the AHJ relating to the two sections cited above, the Appellant has requested to utilize a performance-based design in accordance with RILSC Chapter 5. 
5.	Finally, the Board finds that in accordance with RILSC Sections 5.1.6 and 1.6.2 that the stated performance objectives have not been met, more particularly a code-compliant and reliable system for the notification to occupants of a fire or other emergency [RILSC sections 5.1.2, 4.1 and 4.2]. 
6.	The Board notes the objection by the Exeter  1 Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the approval requested. 
 
 
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, (2018 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, (2018 edition) as incorporated by reference and amended by 450-RICR-00-00-8. 
 
1.	The Board hereby rejects the Appellants proposed performance-based design as an alternative to compliance with the applicable prescriptive code requirements. 
2.	The Board directs that this file may be reopened if necessary, in order to allow the Applicant to return in the future should additional issues be identified and relief be required for the completion of this project. 
 
Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Appellant.  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 Appellants 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(W)]. 
2.	Failure of the Appellant 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(Y)].  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(Z)]. 
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(AA)]. 
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 Appellant 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: RIGL section 23-28.3-6 and FSC section 450-RICR-00-00-1.7.2(S)].  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [See: RIGL section 42-35-15(c)].