The above captioned case was scheduled for a hearing on February l9, 2002 at l:00  p.m.  At that time, Vice Chairman Richard and Commissioners Wahlberg, Fang, Filippi, Newbrook, O’Connell and Burlingame were present. The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal and Chief of Inspections William Howe of the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner O’Connell to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDING OF FACT

During the February l9, 2002 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised that the Applicant sought relief from the provisions of Section 23-28.2-26 in order not to provide the State Fire Marshal’s Office with plan review fees for the above captioned project.  During the hearing, the Board was advised of a letter submitted on February 6, 2002 by the State Fire Marshal.  In the letter, the State Fire Marshal advised the Board that his office had no objections to the waiver of fees for the Department of Education project MET School.  The Marshal further advised the Board that his specific reason to not objecting to the fee waiver was because the money for this project was allocated almost a decade ago and, to unavoidable delays in relation to escalating cost, the project had incurred some unforeseen engineering and redesign problems.  The Board further reviewed the correspondence of Commissioner Peter McWaters dated January 24, 2002.  In this letter, the Commissioner reaffirmed the position of the State Fire Marshal and advised the Board that the funding set aside for permitting and building plan review is currently essential to ensure adequate funding for the construction of this project.  The Board was further advised that the Building Code Standards Committee granted a variance to waive the plan review fee and the building code fees for the same reasons the Applicant was seeking variance from the State Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal & Review.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of Section 23-28.2-26 in order to allow the Applicant not to submit plan review fees to the State Fire Marshal’s Office.  In granting this variance, it is the understanding of the Board that the State Fire Marshal’s Office has no objection in light of the unique nature of this project and that the funding was originally allocated a decade ago.

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.

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.  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.  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 changes creates a new use or occupancy as outlined in R.I.G.L. 23-28.l-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.

	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.  [RIGL 42-35-l5(c)]