The above-captioned case was originally heard by the Board on October 25, 2005 and a decision in file number 050820 was issued on or about February 15, 2006.  The Applicant has returned to the Board requesting that the original variance be reinstated.  The Applicants request was assigned for hearing on October 7, 2008 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Coutu, Vice Chairman Newbrook and Commissioners Blackburn, Jackson, Jasparro and Dias were present.  The fire service was represented by Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal James Conway of the Valley Falls Fire District Fire Marshals Office.  A motion was made by Commissioner Blackburn and seconded by Commissioner Jackson to grant the Applicant relief as outlined herein.  The motion was unanimous.

FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board finds that the Applicant received a prior variance issued in its decision in file number 050820 as referenced above.  The Board further finds that the Applicant has returned to request reinstatement of the prior variance.  The Board was further advised that the Applicant would upgrade the local fire alarm system at the direction and to the satisfaction of the Valley Falls Fire District Fire Marshal's Office.  Finally, the parties understand that the reinstatement of this variance is contingent upon the present and continued use of this facility as a dispatch center for police and fire.  Any change of this use would automatically require an upgrade of the system to comply with the code.
	
CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS 
	1.  The Board hereby again reaffirms the original variances granted to allow this facility to maintain a local fire alarm system which would currently notify the occupants of the dispatch center as to trouble in the building by initiation of fire alarm devices as opposed to a direct signal.  The Board notes that this variance is contingent upon the Applicant maintaining the dispatch center within this complex.  In the event the Applicant transfers the dispatch function from this complex, the Applicant is directed to upgrade the fire alarm system within this facility.

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)].