As indicated in the file, a hearing involving the above-captioned property was conducted on August 18, 2015 before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, pursuant to RI General Laws Section 23-28.3-5.
	In attendance at the hearing were the following:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Booth, Jackson, Pearson, Richard, and Thornton.
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Brayton Round of the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.
APPLICANT: Ellen Puccetti and Don Larose.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: W. Keith Burlingame, Esq.

TRAVEL OF THE CASE

1.	This is an Application for Variance filed under R.I.G.L. Chapter 23-28.3, entitled the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review, and the Administrative Regulations promulgated thereunder.
2.	The Application was filed by Ellen Puccetti (authorized representative) of Wright's Dairy Farm, 229 Woonsocket Hill Road, North Smithfield, RI dated June 23, 2015.
3.	The Application was received by the Board and File  150073 opened on July 14, 2015.
4.	A hearing on the Application was conducted on August 18, 2015 at 1:00 PM before the Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review.
5.	After all evidence was presented at the hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner Richard and seconded by Commissioner Thornton to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion passed on a 6 to 0 vote.

RECORD OF THE CASE

The following documents are part of the administrative record for Appeal  150073 and are pertinent to the decision rendered:

1.	Variance Application  150073 dated June 23, 2015 and filed on July 14, 2015.
2.	North Smithfield Fire Marshals Plan Review letter dated November 17, 2014.

EXHIBITS

The following documents were presented at the August 18, 2015 hearing as exhibits:

1.	AHJ photographs (2).
2.	Applicants Proposed Conditions site plan drawing  2014-145 dated Sept. 2014.

FINDINGS OF FACT

	Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and a review of the administrative file, the Board makes the following Finding of Fact:

1.	The numbers of the Decision below correspond with those of the November 14, 2014 inspection report compiled by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office.  The above report was utilized by the Board, the Applicant and the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office during the August 18, 2015 hearing on this matter.  Accordingly, the Board hereby incorporates the November 14, 2014 inspection report as its initial findings of fact.  Any modification of the Boards findings, such as correction of a deficiency by the Applicant, shall be noted herein.
2.	There is no objection by the North Smithfield Fire Marshals Office to the granting of the relief outlined herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DETERMINATIONS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS

1.	The Board hereby grants the Applicant a variance from the provisions of RIFC section 18.2.3.4 by allowing the proposed access driveway with a partial reduced width of not less than twelve (12) feet in accordance with the submitted site plan.  In consideration of the relief granted herein, the Board directs the Applicant to provide approved pavement markings and a plan for snow removal so as to ensure unobstructed widths will be maintained at all times, at the direction and to the satisfaction of the North Smithfield Fire Marshal's Office.

Any deficiency understood by the Board to have been corrected, which is not so corrected, shall be immediately corrected by the Applicant.  The term approved, as used herein, is understood to mean in accordance with the specific provisions related to the particular subject as are contained in this Code, or as approved in particular by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (State Fire Marshal, his or her designated Deputy State Fire Marshals and/or Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshals).

STATUS OF DECISION AND APPEAL RIGHTS

1.	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 6-2-22).
2.	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 6-2-23.)  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 6-2-24).
3.	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 6-2-25).
4.	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.  (See: Board Rules and Regulations, section 6-2-18).  Commencement of such an action does not operate as an automatic stay of this Decision [R.I.G.L. 42-35-15(c)].