The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on April 12, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Preiss, Newbrook, Burlingame and Filippi were present.  The fire service was not directly represented at this hearing.  However, by memo dated April 11, 2005 Chief Plan Review Officer George Hoyle advised the Board that there should be no objection by the office to grant a variance to waive the State Fire Marshal’s Office plan review fee for the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal project.  Marshal Hoyle further advised that it was his understanding that the Fire Code Board had previously granted a waiver of the Fire Marshal’s plan review fee for the new Kent County Courthouse.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Burlingame to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	
By letter dated April 1, 2005, the Applicant’s representative advised the Board that they were requesting a waiver of the plan review fee for the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal to be located at the John O. Pastore Government Center.  The Board was further advised, by letter dated April 12, 2005, that the Administration would have no objection to the waiver of the balance of the plan review fees for the new traffic courthouse after the actual cost of the plan review fee has been reimbursed to the Fire Marshal’s office.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	
1.  In light of the position of the parties, the Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance in order to provide the State Fire Marshal’s office with plan review fees covering the actual cost of the plan review conducted by the State Fire Marshal’s office.  Accordingly, the balance of any plan review fees for the new traffic courthouse may be waived by the agency.

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)].