The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on 2/4/2014 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Newbrook, Vice Chairperson Filippi and Commissioners Booth, Pearson, Thornton, Jackson, Richard Burlingame and Sylvester were present.  Also present was Department of Administration Deputy Legal Counsel Peter N. Dennehy.  The fire service was represented by Deputy State Fire Marshal Scott Caron of the State Fire Marshals Office.  The Applicant was represented by Mr. Vincent Yevoli and Mr. Ray LaChappelle (letter of authorization on file).  A motion was made by Commissioner Sylvester and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	It is the understanding of the Board that the Applicant utilizes small amounts of regulated explosive material in the course of their manufacturing operations; however there are no blasting operations conducted related to this process.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS

	1.  The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance for relief from the Bond for blasting operations requirements of RIGL section 23-28.28-32.
	In granting the above relief, it is the understanding of the Board that there is no objection by the State Fire Marshals Office.
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)].