The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on July 25, 2006 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Burlingame and Commissioners Richard and Preiss were present.  Commissioners Newbrook and OConnell recused themselves from consideration of this case.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Timothy Hawthorne of the Cranston Fire Marshals Office.  A motion to recommend the relief granted below was made by Vice Chairman Burlingame and seconded by Commissioner Richard.  The motion was approved by the subcommittee of the board.  The subcommittee recommendations were thereupon approved by the full Board on August 1, 2006 pursuant to a motion made by Commissioner Pearson with a second by Vice Chairman Burlingame.  Accordingly the subcommittee recommendation now has the status of a full Board decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that this is an industrial facility that is undergoing a renovation of its testing areas.  The Board finds that plans for the renovation were submitted to the Cranston Fire Marshal's office and that the Cranston Fire Marshal's office determined that the access driveway exceeds 150 feet.  As such, the Cranston Fire Marshal's office noted that an approved turn around is required by the provisions of RI Uniform Fire Code section 18.2.2.5.4.  The Board further finds that, based upon the property configuration, the Cranston Fire Marshal's office supports the requested relief.

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby grants a variance from the provisions of RIUFC section 18.2.2.5.4 in order not to require the Applicant to maintain an approved turn around on the access driveway servicing this property.  This variance is based upon the limitations imposed by the property configuration.  

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 subcommittees recommendation to the full Board, within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Decision, by requesting such review in writing in accordance with the provisions of RIGL 23-28.3-5(b)4.  Commencement of such an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].