The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on May 20, 2003 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell and Commissioners Wahlberg, Preiss, Newbrook, Filippi, Coutu and Burlingame were present.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Kevin Murphy of the State Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Wahlberg and seconded by Commissioner Filippi to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed over the opposition votes of Commissioners Burlingame and Preiss.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	During the May 20, 2003 hearing on this matter, the Board was advised and finds that the Applicant is in the process of converting a state owned facility into a new hotel.  As such, the state of Rhode Island is responsible for payment of plan review fees under both the building and fire codes.  In light of the fact that the fees are payable back to the State of Rhode Island, the Applicant has requested a reduced fee schedule to reflect the actual direct cost of fire code development in this case.  The Board has been advised by letter dated March 27, 2003 that the fire code enforcement direct costs for this case would be 18.000.00.  Accordingly, the Applicant is requesting a fee reduction to 18,000.00 for fire code enforcement direct cost covering this facility.  The Applicant is further requesting that this file remain open in the event other issues are noted during the plan review phase.
1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a reduction in the amount of the permit fees to be paid by this facility for fire code enforcement purposes.  Specifically, the Applicant shall only be required to pay the State Fire Marshals office 18,000.00 covering the actual fire code enforcement direct cost.  In granting this fee reduction, it is the understanding of the State Fire Board that the State Fire Marshals office has no objection. 

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 Applicants 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 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 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 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.  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].