The Building Code Standards Committee approves Echo Village code variances
A fifteen-minute meeting lasted an hour as the commission wrestled with irrelevancies.
The following has been edited for clarity and some of the technical terms and Building Code citations have been simplified.
Wayne Pimental, ICC CBO, CFM / Chair of the Building Code Standards Committee: Good afternoon everyone. We're going to call to order the Building Code Standards Committee. It’s May 9th, 2024 and the time is 1:10 pm. We do have a quorum right now of 13 members. That's the minimum amount, but I'll have a legal counsel, Keith Burlingame, explain [that] we have one member that has to leave at 2:00 pm and we'll explain the ramifications of that if this gets to that point. And he has,
W Keith Burlingame, Esq., Legal Counsel for the Building Code Standards Committee: So as the Chair pointed out, we have exactly a quorum and we have one member who is leaving the meeting at 2:00 PM. If you, the applicants, feel you can present your case and get it done by 2:00 PM we're good to go. Or in the alternative, we were expecting one additional person and thought we had a little bit of wiggle room. That person is not yet here but may show up. So if that 14th person shows up, the exiting of one person will not affect the proceedings. However, if we still only have 13 and one person leaves, we cannot take any action on the application. So that's a tactical decision that you folks need to consider because continuing it to a different meeting is usually not productive because the next time we convene it could be 13 different people and essentially we'd be starting all over again. So if you want to proceed, we're ready to proceed with 13 members present and you roll the dice, I guess.
Lauren Barnes, Project Manager at the State of Rhode Island Department of Housing: We'd like to proceed, thank you.
W Keith Burlingame: [This] appeal [is] for the property at or about 21 Victor Street in Providence, also known as Echo Village. Anyone who plans on testifying, please come forward.
Wayne Pimental: I'm just going to read the appeal so we know the exact sections that you're seeking your variance from. So this is item number one [on our agenda], which is to review, discuss, and vote on [the Echo Village] application… [The] Rhode Island Department of Housing, as the authorized representative for the owner, is seeking variance[s] to … code requirements … for the construction of a Pallet Shelter community, located at 21 Victor Street in Providence, Rhode Island. The first variance request is [for] fire separation distance, [the second is for] automatic sprinkler systems, [the third is for] building envelope requirements, and [the fourth is for] fixture count and locations.
Lauren Barnes: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and commissioners, we appreciate you taking the time to hear us today as well as going through the information that was submitted. [Italics mine] We know that it was dense and we appreciate your time. I want to acknowledge the group of folks behind me who are here in support of the project as well. We have the Housing Secretary Stephen Pryor, as well as the Executive Director of House of Hope, Laura Jaworski. We previously came before this board on January 25th and some of you were here and some of you were not, so if you like, I'd be happy to give a very brief overview of the project and then get right into the four items that we're here to discuss.
Although new to Rhode Island, the Pallet company has deployed thousands of these units all over the country. Echo Village is, as was stated, going to [execute] this program on a plot of state-owned land in Providence. We're proposing 45 sleeping units and these are roughly 70 square feet [each]. There are also some accessory units - about nine accessory buildings. That includes a community space, offices, laundry, and hygiene units through our provider, House of Hope. This facility will be staffed 24/7, including overnight security. Clients will be provided meals as there is no cooking on site. There will be access to case management, housing problem-solving, help with securing vital documents, job search and training, insurance, and medical professional connections. This project will have wraparound services for Rhode Islanders who are experiencing homelessness and will aim for them to be able to access our state's network of social services and begin to connect to housing opportunities.
Because these sleeping units and this very specific and new programmatic occupancy are not addressed directly in the [building] code, we are here seeking four variances. We have already had one of these items brought before the fire board of appeals, which was the automatic sprinkler system. So we will be discussing that with you all as well. We're happy to start at the top and move forward. We are here to answer your questions and make sure we're providing as much information as possible.
Wayne Pimental: What documentation did you provide to the state on this application?
Lauren Barnes: We have provided many hundreds of pages of documentation and updated Life Safety Plans. There were a few manufacturer letters and recommendations on the alternative systems that we are seeking approval on, including a CeaseFire system - a dry chemical suppression system - we're seeking approval of as an alternative to a traditional residential sprinkler system. There was [also] documentation from Firefree Coatings, the intumescent paint manufacturer describing installation recommendations to achieve the one-hour fire rating that was submitted.
Andre Gill, Andre Gill Engineering: Yeah, they had the test reports from the fire paint company. We had the documentation of that... Instructions for the installation of the painting, some guidance on installation. CeaseFire manuals were submitted.
Wayne Pimental: Jim, can you comment on anything?
James Cambio, ICC CBO, Executive Secretary of the Building Code Standards Committee: Sure, I can address it. What we received was a plan with a lot of potential scenarios. We did not receive actual construction plans for review and we don't have any testing on the products. When I say testing, [that is] testing that would provide the one-hour rating because the shelter systems themselves, the assembly, was not tested. The paint supplier said, “We can tell you you can get a one-hour rating on certain materials but we can't definitively say the pallet shelter material would achieve the one-hour rating if the material is applied per manufacturer specs.”
On the dry chemical system, the fire code allows a substitute, or we'll say an equivalency, under certain circumstances, but the dry chemical engineers would not provide us with a letter saying that they are an alternative to a wet sprinkler system in this use. So while the dry chemical system may be suitable in a multitude of instances, we don't have anything definitively saying [it works with these] units. Beyond that, we have nothing presented saying, “Here's what we are trying to achieve.” We don't have any equivalencies because we don't have anything to show the equivalency state other than what the testimonies here are.
Wayne Pimental: Did you provide any information on the fire separation distance, the building envelope requirements, and the fixture count, as far as what type of relief is being sought?
Lauren Barnes: We're discussing the building envelope as well as the fixture count here today. The documentation was that we simply received a “deficiency report” and asked for relief on these items.
Andre Gill: Documentation was provided in a letter directly to members of the Building Code Committee and there was supplemental information about the equivalency of these painting systems. We've [explained] many times that this doesn't fit in any particular box in the building code, and as professional engineers in multiple jurisdictions, it's our responsibility to ensure that public safety is addressed in all of our projects and these are the ways that we ensure the public’s safety needs are met - by following our code of ethics, by filling in for gaps in the building code or any other code where there isn't a defined procedure or path to get this or any type of project, and ensuring that the safety of the public is being adhered to foremost.
In our opinion, the items that we submitted, while they do not fit in a particular bucket, have been addressed, and [we’ve] ensured that the locations and the code where they were most applicable were being adhered to.
Wayne Pimental: What we'll do is start with the first one. You can explain what type [of variance] you're seeking. We can get questions from the board and then we can decide as a board whether or not we want to vote on those individually or whether we want to vote on all four together.
Gordon W. Preiss, P.E. Member of the Building Code Standards Committee: Can I ask a question to start? I thought our normal procedure was that they apply for a permit. Isn't that the normal procedure, that you apply for a permit, and then we get the authority with jurisdiction to determine whether or not their application for construction meets the code? Then they are required to give a reason why they are not adhering to the code and cite a particular item. I don't particularly want to be a designer today, because I'm not on their staff. We could hypothesize on what needs to be done for this, but I have no idea whether or not there are a hundred or a thousand different possibilities for what you're going to do…
I mean, when you mention sprinklers to me, please realize that almost under [no] circumstance does the fire code tell you whether you need sprinklers or not… The fire codes rarely tell you whether you have to have a sprinkler in the building or not. And we would know that because you would have to apply for a permit and we would get the site on that. In my opinion, we're going to waste a lot of time here, a lot of design time, because they haven't designed - have you designed the building?
Andre Gill: Sir? That is exactly how we got to this point, the drawings have been submitted. It was a 54-page document of drawings from every section of this project, and we have approval from the BCC for plumbing, in addition to electrical. There were items that we received action on from the BCC that we needed to go back and address. And that is how we got to...
Gordon Preiss: The BCC is what?
Andre Gill: I'm sorry. The Building Code Commissioner. I apologize.
James Cambio: Commissioner Priess, if I may, just recently Mr. Gill told me he was not prepared to submit construction plans for review.
Gordon Preiss: I have not got a set of plans.
James Cambio: You are exactly right. There are no construction plans…
Gordon Preiss: If there aren't any plans...
James Cambio: The permits that were issued, if I could finish, were for conduit and some plumbing work that was incidental to the building permit. It didn't matter. Those contractors were willing to take the risk because they were doing a very minor portion of the project. We do not have construction plans.
Gordon Preiss: Okay. And quite honestly, we can talk about 62 things. There might be 162 things. I have never seen these drawings that you purport to have. I've never seen them. Are they drawings or are they just letters, discussions, and sketches?
Lauren Barnes: These are stamped drawings.
Andre Gill: These are stamped plans and to the commissioner's point, I did use that phrase about the construction documents and the reason why that phrase was used was because the plans that were initially submitted in January were for permitting. As I previously explained, that is how we got to this point. During the review of those drawings that were issued for a permit, we received feedback that we needed to address certain items in those documents, and as I mentioned before, that is how we got to that point. Those drawings were submitted in January and there have been numerous updates to those drawings whenever there has been feedback or a comment, we address those issues as we saw fit and we were under the impression, based on the meetings that we had, that we were fine with those and that the only items that remained were these four items that we're here to discuss today.
Gordon Preiss: The building department...
James Cambio: We reviewed concept plans.
Gordon Preiss: You have the concept plans, but you didn't consider that a permit?
James Cambio: We would never be able to issue a permit based on the submission.
Gordon Preiss: So, unless I've missed something for the last 35 years, which I probably have, we don't have a formal procedure here to know that some of the items might've been properly addressed, which I'm sure they were, but there might've been some items that have not been.
I don't see that you correctly applied to the state for a permit for this particular project.
I'll also ask another question because some of my commissioners might expect me to. When you say stamped drawings, of course, those were done by a professional engineer licensed in Connecticut.
Andre Gill: Rhode Island, Sir.
Gordon Preiss: Excuse me?
Andre Gill: Rhode Island, Sir.
Gordon Preiss: I'm sorry, okay. Rhode Island. I just wanted to know that. I didn't do a lookup on you but I could have on that. Interestingly, we're helping these people, but without a set of plans that I can review or that have been formally reviewed by the state and had comments on them, I don't see how we're going to do a proper job of evaluating some of these items….
Wayne Pimental: Jim, regarding the concept plans that were submitted, did your department do a review of those for code compliance?
James Cambio: Yes, and these [four items] were the deficiencies.
Wayne Pimental: Okay. They have been reviewed. Even though they're concepts, they have been reviewed. Those are the deficiencies that were here to address and you're seeking a variance on them.
Gordon Preiss: But we don't have the - has anyone - who's seen the drawings in here?
James Cambio: The drawings would not address these any more definitively than their testimony would.
Gordon Preiss: But do we have the list of the requirements [needed] to revise the drawings? Do we have that list? Because you mentioned it might've been a list.
James Cambio: You are saying, like on fire separation distance, that you want the code requirement? The code requirement is that the units stay 20 feet apart. They need to maintain a one-hour fire resistance rating. The existing shelters have no rating so they are going to submit testimony to say they can achieve that rating with this paint.
Gordon Preiss: But wouldn't it be most common that we would have, as commissioners, seen this design?
James Cambio: No design's been listed so there was nothing to show you beyond what Mr. Gill...
Gordon Preiss: They said that they submitted drawings...
James Cambio: Yeah, showing the layout of the units but not showing...
Gordon Preiss: Not a permit set. And it went through the normal portal for applications...
Lauren Barnes: Yes.
James Cambio: Yes. The problem is there is no listing for the paint product on that assembly that would provide a one-hour rating. So they were going to provide testimony today to tell you they think they can get there.
Gordon Preiss: Okay.
Wayne Pimental: You all set Gordon, for now?
Joseph Warner, Jr., CBO, CFM / Vice-Chairperson of the Building Code Standards Committee: Reviewing my notes from the last meeting, which I believe was in January, my request was [that] I want to see the entire plans for this project, including how these units are built and what they're built of - including a rendition that was given to us - but we need actual plans, and along with that, what you're seeking a variance from. We want to see exactly, on those plans, what your proposal is, along with documentation.
Lauren Barnes: Absolutely.
Joseph Warner, Jr: But not renditions like this, which to be honest with you, I can't even read. It's so small. I feel like we're in the same place we were in the last meeting, where I don't feel we're going to be able to make a decision today without a complete set of construction documents.
Lauren Barnes: Commissioner, we have submitted a full set of plans, whether we want to call them conceptual review, whatever it may be. Those drawings [are] stamped by architectural. We have a set of architectural, plumbing, and electrical plans all in a set, including drawings from the manufacturer that detail what these shelters are made of, how they're put together, and what the interiors look like - a full set of plans. We have provided that in the portal. We're happy to provide it to each commissioner separately if that's needed. We did not realize that that was needed at this time, we thought submitting to the portal [was sufficient]. We're happy to review any of those drawings and we have been taking feedback, since January, trying to update these drawings and address questions and concerns about them.
Joseph Warner, Jr.: I understand, but like I said, without that in front of me, I am just going on what you're saying. I want to see these plans, these documents, I want to see them.
Andre Gill: The document you're [looking at] is the title sheet. Other documents go along with that are actual drawings that detail the exact layout of what is being proposed…
Lauren Barnes: …including things like the location and depiction of the alternative dry chemical system that we're proposing.
Andre Gill: Also, what is being lost is that there are portions of the project which we are seeking a variance for. [Take the] fire suppression for example, where my comment to the commissioner about how we will be submitting another set of actual construction plans when we get through this appeal process. For example, the fire suppression system we are using is not tied to the domestic water system. We went through the fire board of appeal and we received relief from them. Now we understand we have to receive relief from you guys as well to meet the building code requirements. At that point, if you guys did not accept this system as an equivalent or an alternative to the automatic sprinklers for resident occupancy, we would have to go back and update the plumbing plans. Updating those plumbing plans would require us to update the electrical plans, the mechanical plans, and the civil engineering plans.
What we are trying to do, the reason we had that conversation, and the reason we are in the place that we are in Sir, is that we do not want to waste the client's money, the state's money, the taxpayer's money, or your time. There would be no reason for us to proceed with the full fire protection system if we do receive relief from this [commission]. There are items where, since this does not fit anywhere in the building code, we are at a standstill. We submitted those initial documents for permit in good faith in January and this is the point that we're at now. We're not trying to do anything malicious, we are merely seeking approval for the four items that are listed on the agenda today. If we receive relief from [this commission], we will go back and update every single drawing in the set and it will go through the normal permitting process. We would not typically see this appeals board. The normal permitting process doesn't require applicants to come to this appeals board. We are here because we're seeking relief from these four items - which were pointed out to us through the review of the drawings that were submitted.
Gordon Preiss: I didn't hear that word before. Did you say the Supreme Court?
Andre Gill: No.
Gordon Preiss: You said - I'm sorry, I don't hear well.
[Croostalk] No, I understand. That's right. I am confused also. [Crosstalk]
Frank Montanaro, Member of Building Code Standards Committee: I will say one thing in deference to the Housing Secretary and his staff. They've been doing yeoman's work trying to help solve this crisis. We all recognize this housing crisis. I'm not saying I'm for or against [Echo Village] at this point - I want to hear from the fire marshal - I know he's standing in the back - on some of these items that we're discussing, especially for the benefit of the members of the public that may or may not look at our minutes. But we all want safety in housing. We all want to address this crisis. You're in a quandary right now. We all sympathize with what we need to do as a society, but we also have to follow the codes for safety. It's not long ago when I was sitting in a different seat and we had - it's apples and oranges [but] there was another tragedy of a fire that happened in the state. We get reminded of it every year. I don't think anybody here wants to go down that path again, and there have been several fire tragedies throughout [the state] and they're documented.
I am the public member here so I have to speak on behalf of the public. We hear the [Housing Department's] concern and we'd like to address it, but we need to make sure whatever decision we make complies with the strict standards - not only with the building code but the fire safety code. I think that's the biggest sticking point for a lot of us and we want to work very closely with the department to try to reach their goal. We have people in tents on the sides of the highway. That's a tragedy in and of itself. I mean, they're sleeping in conditions that are going to be much more detrimental to their health and well-being than putting them in temporary housing.
I want to be very clear, I'm not for or against [Echo Village] right now. I'm listening. I think it would benefit us all if we hear from the fire marshal, at least on my end. I think all the professionals here on the Building Code Commission, who know it much better than most, need to make, at the end of the day, the general public comfortable with that. The fire marshal's office, local fire departments, and online people understand what they're facing if we move this and we house people in this type of facility. That's my opinion. I just wanted to put that out there. But nobody's here trying to put anything over. I think the Department is trying to help address this crisis.
Wayne Pimental: Keith's going to give us an update on what transpired at the fire board then I'd like to get feedback from the entire board as to whether or not they feel they feel we can move forward on these four items, without the documentation, and make a decision. Otherwise, we're going to continue this and at some point, people are going to say we don't have enough information and we don't want to vote on it. So I'll let Keith speak on that and then we'll get some consensus.
W Keith Burlingame: Commissioner, this project was reviewed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and a plan review deficiency report was issued. That report was presented to the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review. I don't remember the exact date. It was about three or four weeks ago when three requests were made for relief. All three were granted. Items one and two involved the fire department's access road into the project and they were given relief to maintain the existing slope of the driveway and the existing surface composition of the driveway. The third item they requested relief from and was granted involved the requirement for automatic sprinklers under the requirements for new hotels in chapter 28 of the Life Safety Code section which requires automatic sprinklers at all hotel occupancies. However, within the Life Safety Code [there are] provisions where alternate suppression agents can be used in lieu of water if approved by the authority having jurisdiction - in this case the authority having jurisdiction is the fire board.
So that matter was presented and without opposition from the State Fire Marshal's office, the board approved the use of a dry chemical system in lieu of a water suppression system provided that it be installed following the applicable standard for dry chemical systems. That is the extent of any involvement on the fire side of the house.
The issue of separation of buildings or whether this paint was listed for use with the Pallet structure materials was not presented to the fire board nor was it ruled on, so those are the three resolutions. Now, under number two here, in section 903, what the fire board did has almost no bearing on what the building code requires or does. However, another section permits alternate suppression systems if approved by [this commission] and if approved by the fire authority. The fire authority has already given its approval. Now the ball's in your court to determine whether or not you want to consider it as an alternative under the building code.
Frank Montanaro: Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate that. That was much needed for everybody who was paying attention to this particular issue.
Seth Zeren, Member of Building Code Standards Committee: That was very helpful. I shared concerns expressed previously, but I also feel that in context, this product [Pallet Shelters] is a modular unit that has been installed thousands of times across the country. We're not a unique special case. Everyone has to deal with fires. They figured out a way to make it happen. This isn't a fly-by-night operation and the alternative is tents. So from a fire safety perspective, if the fire marshal is comfortable with what's going on, I don't find myself [needing] to get involved in that. If the fire marshal's already signed off on it, I'm good. This is not like, “I'm going to throw together plywood kind of operation.” I'd like to hear a little bit more about the other items about the fixture account locations. I think I understand conceptually it's not a hotel - it's in the hotel code - but it's not a hotel so they have some porta-potties or whatever. It seems fine. I wish we had the plans that have been submitted so we could have looked at them. That would've been helpful, I think
James Cambio: The plans don't accurately reflect the existing or proposed fixture composition. That's what I'm trying to make clear to the board. We do not have construction drawings, we have ideas put on paper…
Seth Zeren: Anyway in the context of the fire, I don't find myself to be super concerned if the fire marshal's already signed off on it. I'm supportive of [Echo Village] but even though I'm relatively supportive, it's challenging without a drawing.
Wayne Pimental: Alright, so we have just about 15 minutes before Seth Zeren has to leave.
Seth Zeren: I can push a little bit. This is important. I think your point about whether we going to make a decision or not is the critical question.
Wayne Pimental: Do the board members feel as though we can vote on them, explaining the type of relief that is necessary without having the full set of drawings?
Unknown Committee Member: My concern is the building code requires separation and sprinklers. I'd be leery about granting variances for both. I don't want to do a design review over the separation issue. If you have technical data, it's going to be difficult for us to sit here and review that. That would be my concern. How are we going to review that separation?
Rob Stolman: If I may. I'm sorry I haven't entered my appearance. I'm Rob Stolman, outside general counsel for the Department of Housing. I just want to be very clear, we did not ask for a variance for the dry system. It's an alternative. It's a code-approved alternative. We're only asking for relief on the separation. We're not doubling up or doubling down on variances. There's an alternative to a wet sprinkler system. It's a dry chemical system. It's a complete alternative. So there is a sprinkler system and just for background, these are going to be the first fire-suppressed Pallet Shelters out of the thousands that have been built. Nowhere else is a sprinkler system required for residential use. They are required, in other jurisdictions, to have smoke and heat detection and we have those as well. There's been no attempt to diminish public safety here at all. We think all four of these are above and beyond and all four of these are not life safety related. The fire separation one is safety obviously, but again, it's a single variance and we're taking a relatively flame retardant material and putting additional suppression on it because of the 10 feet rather than the 20 feet between the buildings.
Lauren Barnes: Although not tested on the exact composite panel from Pallet, it has been tested on other composite panels - fiberglass with foam core. It's been tested on similar products, not the exact product as the commissioner stated. So we don't have that exact data, but we do know how it performs on very similar products. Also, if helpful at all, I do have letters from both the Ceasefire manufacturer recommending this product for sleeping units, as well as from the intumescent paint manufacturer recommending installation. I'm happy to pass this around. It was submitted in the portal with our permit application, but I don't know if it's too much to review at the moment.
Andre Gill: Can we also state for the record the dates that the drawings have been submitted in addition to the summary and additional information?
Wayne Pimental: If you want to go on record with that, sure.
Andre Gill: The original drawings were submitted on January 10th. There was a memo that was revised and submitted on February 10th. There was an executive summary that detailed all the information about the paints, its review, and the recommendations from the manufacturer that was submitted in March. The life safety plans were updated again and submitted to the portal on April 29th and then the plans were most recently updated and resubmitted to the portal on May 2nd. So for the record, I would like to clarify that these documents have been submitted. It shows the layout of the restrooms- we speak to that specifically - and the additional items that we are seeking variance for - the three items that we are here for.
Joseph Warner: Just to make it clear, when I stated earlier that I wanted to see plans for this whole project, not necessarily stamped at this time because I understand that you need to move forward, possibly, with these variants, but I want to see everything that was submitted in the time to review and give you an answer. I'm just not ready to move forward until I see all this documentation in front of me. If they were submitted a month ago, why didn't we get them?
Rob Stolman: Mr. Chair, just for the record, I again want to state they were submitted to the portal. There's nowhere in your documentation, and we were never advised by anybody in the department that we were obligated to provide separate hard packets to each member. We're happy to do so but it's not normal procedure.
Andre Gill: We were under the impression that the documents we submitted had been disseminated to all members. This is the first we've heard that you guys have not seen the documents.
Edward Orazine, Senior Technical Manager - Fire Protection and Risk Services at Engineering Planning and Management Inc.: Some of the drawings showed the CeaseFire system inside the PalletShelters with the elevations drawings with the fire alarm system, layout drawings with the site layout for life safety addressing all the different muster points and egress, noting the different code issues on the front page.
As far as looking at this as a whole project, where it's like you said, not a cookie cutter code, it's not your hotel or a dormitory, you have multiple separated units. You're only separated by nine feet or six feet depending on where they're located. So we provided the paint separation on the inside and outside of the building. As a mitigation equivalency, the paint is like 30 mills and under testing it doesn't burn. So we figured it'd be equivalent to a 30-minutes. If you put on both sides, it gives you an hour or so.
Plus we have a suppression system inside the building - the dry chemical system. That's monitored. It's activated by a sprinkler head, so it's self-contained, it's automatically activated. On top of that, every unit gets smoke alarms to connect to the system. That's 24/7 site security and it's monitored by the Providence Fire Department master box. We try to look at the code and what the requirements are and go a little bit beyond the code as far as adding fire suppression, paints, and detection. You have security on site. Each unit opens to the outside so everybody egresses to the exterior. There are multiple items addressed as far as the life safety on the site goes.
Wayne Pimental: It looks as though you uploaded the drawings to the portal. Was there any communication to the commissioner's office that these were related to the appeal?
Andre Gill: Yes sir. There's also a receipt that comes back from the portal when these documents are uploaded. There have been comments by multiple - I don't know if “inspectors” is the right term - but I would assume that there are inspectors from each discipline that have provided us feedback on the drawings that have been reviewed in total. As I've mentioned before, this is the first I've heard that you guys did not have the opportunity to review.
Wayne Pimental: Mr. Chairman, I can put them up on the large screen.
Andre Gill: I don't want to speak for everybody, but I'm going to assume that Ed and I are the only professional engineers in this room. There may be others, but [I'm saying] saying that [because] the information that has been provided is above and beyond the level of detail that you guys typically review. This is why I commented to the commissioner that we understand the impact of this project - not just on the people who need it but on the state and our jobs in general. We would not be signing off on these documents if we did not believe, in our professional opinion, that this was the best way to meet the intent of the code. We are here merely for these four items and we went off on a tangent and we're talking about other things, but we were told that we had until two o'clock to get to the point, we have not spent any time talking about the four items that we were here to discuss.
Lauren Barnes: We understand that the drawing set may be unorthodox or be seen as incomplete in some ways and we believe that's because the program and the building itself do not neatly fit into the coding. We've made a good-faith effort to provide as much information and documentation as possible. That's why we're here today. We're happy to answer questions and review things, but we have made our best effort to provide a full detailed set.
Edward Orazine: And we've gotten comments from the Fire Marshal's office addressing those.
Gordon Preiss: One of my first comments was you have a section that says automatic sprinklers. The statement that I made is that once it's determined that sprinklers are required by the building code, then it would go to the fire code and they've done their proper due diligence. They looked at it. It's not our [place] to look at that decision and say whether or not that's an equivalent system. Not that we can't, but that's not our job. And I feel a thousand percent convinced that if the Fire Board took it up, they reviewed it properly. But these statements here don't do a lot for me. You've already got a decision from the fire board, correct?
Lauren Barnes: Correct.
Andre Gill: That was for the Rhode Island Life Safety Code. Now we need approval from the Building Code.
Gordon Preiss: Okay, now I understand it, which is fine. Dry systems are very common. Every commercial kitchen has one.
Lauren Barnes: Correct.
Gordon Preiss: So it isn't that it's modern technology, correct? It is very well known. When I read this, I thought you were looking for a variance on automatic sprinklers. There isn't one needed right now.
Keith Burlingame: Can I clarify this so we can move on? Chapter nine of the building code says fire suppression systems shall be permitted and approved by the fire authority - and they have.
Frank Montanaro: So that's off the table now. I just want to get to the next important question. I'm comfortable with the fire issue. Let's get onto the code issue. Let's try to get an answer, one way or another, and try to get some of our members here who have to leave for their next meeting. Let's not forget, we're a volunteer board. There's no pay here.
Wayne Pimental: If everybody's comfortable, we'll allow them to provide their testimony for why they're seeking variances on these and then we can let the board determine whether that is enough information or whether they still want to see drawings and additional data. We'll have you address the fire separation distance and then we'll move on to the building envelope and then the fixed account.
Lauren Barnes: For fire separation distance, we are required to have a separation of 10 feet on either side of the imaginary line. Due to site constraints, we're not able to achieve that. Our buildings are between five to nine or six to nine feet between buildings in different locations. The way we are addressing this is with intumescent paint - 30 mills on the interior of the structured 30 mills on the exterior with a UV coating. This is per manufacturer recommendations to achieve a one-hour rating, as was described by the commissioner earlier. Although it has not been tested on the exact composite panel from Pallet, it has been tested on similar composite panels…
Edward Orazine: It's been tested for interior, for a corner burn test, and it's been tested and rated for wildfires. We figured it was an equivalency as far as an alternative…
Lauren Barnes: Let's move on to the building envelope requirements because these are pre-manufactured buildings that are manufactured, designed, and engineered in Washington and California. Unfortunately, we have no control over meeting the energy code requirements so we are seeking full relief from this particular item.
Wayne Pimental: Is there any energy rating for these units?
Andre Gill: Yes sir. The minimum required is a value of 13 for this application, and we are only able to achieve just under seven.
Lauren Barnes: It does have a recovery time of - I think it was less than 15 minutes - from a negative 10-degree day. That's just off the top of my head. But the Pallet community in Burlington had some environmental testing done on these structures and that was a previous version. These Pallets are an updated version.
Seth Zeren: They have heat pumps, right?
Lauren Barnes: Correct.
Seth Zeren: They're heated and cooled individually?
Lauren Barnes: Yes.
Wayne Pimental: Let's move on to the fixture count and locations.
Lauren Barnes: Fixture count and locations are reviewed under R1, which is, as you all know, hotel/motel/transient. We don't necessarily fit into this category very well. The majority of our clients will be staying at Echo Village for longer than 30 days, so it is non-transient. We believe we more closely align with the R2 description in this sense. We are seeking relief on this because our toilets were one per 7.5 [people]. Our showers are one per nine. We have one utility sink, and although we will not be installing water fountains, we will be providing daily bottled water to clients, visitors, and staff. We will be providing water, just in a different form. So we are seeking relief on this…
Andre Gill: This is more of a congregant atmosphere as the entire site is being viewed as one building. We beat requirements as it pertains to the R2 hotel motel, non-transient occupancy. Transient, as defined by the Rhode Island Building Code, is living in a place longer than 30 days.
Wayne Pimental: So we can go through each variance and vote on that if that's the board's pleasure or we can aggregate questions on all four. We know the sprinkler one shouldn't be an issue but we can generate questions and then vote on all four. I'll leave it up to the board.
Paul Alvarez, Commission Member: To get us started I'll move approval on all four.
Wayne Pimental: We have a motion to approve all four requests for variances. We have a second. Any discussion?
Gordon Preiss: …if the fire marshal says that they're good to go, I'd be in favor of it. I'll be honest with you
Lauren Barnes: As far as we understand, in the research that we've done, Pallet has arguably done the best job of providing these rapidly deployable units. They're kind of far and above others in their category. This is, at the moment, the best that we can do in the rapidly deployable unit category.
We did not design these manufactured buildings. We have not looked at how to redesign them to meet code, although we could potentially make alterations to the existing buildings. These are, in theory, temporary structures. They're small, 70 square feet. They recover very quickly and they're meant for people to spend a relatively short amount of time in and then be able to move on to permanent housing.
Joseph Warner, Jr.: I've just got a question. With the new state energy code legislation, we're not permitted to reduce the requirements. So by accepting this, we are reducing our requirements against state law. I've got a question on the legality of whether we have the authority to do that.
Lauren Barnes: Commissioner, the new legislation on the energy code has not yet been adopted or promulgated. We are still operating [under the old legislation.]
Wayne Pimental: All in favor?
The variances seem to have been granted by a unanimous vote.