The above-captioned case was scheduled for hearing on October 25, 2005 at 1:00 P.M.  At that time, Chairman Farrell, Vice Chairman Coutu and Commissioners Blackburn, Newbrook, Preiss, Burlingame and Pearson were present.  By letter dated October 7, 2005, Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal Ernest Cimino of the Valley Falls Fire Marshal's office advised the Board that it had previously granted a variance to allow the subject facility, the Cumberland Police headquarters, not to have a municipally connected fire alarm system.  The rationale for this original relief was the fact that all municipal systems respond to a dispatch center for fire service which is located in the subject facility.  Therefore, the Valley Falls Fire Marshals office was of the opinion that the Cumberland Police headquarters was currently well protected and otherwise in compliance with applicable codes.  A motion was made by Commissioner Newbrook and seconded by Commissioner Preiss to reinstate the original variance.  The motion was unanimous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
	The Board hereby adopts the October 7, 2005 letter from the Valley Falls Fire Marshals office to the Cumberland Police Chief as its initial findings of fact.  Specifically, the Board finds that the fire detection in this facility is a total coverage system pursuant to the requirements of the comprehensive fire code of 2003, chapter 13.  The Board further finds that the office and the common areas of the building are in compliance with the applicable codes and that the cell block area is also in full compliance with the applicable codes.  The Board further finds that all fire alarm systems that are municipally connected respond to the dispatch center located within this facility.  The Board further finds that activation of the local fire alarm system within this facility would immediately be detected by the dispatch center within this facility.  

CONCLUSIONS AND VARIANCE REQUESTS
	1.  In light of the above, the Board hereby reaffirms the original variance granted to allow this facility to maintain a local fire alarm system which currently would notify the occupants of the dispatch center as to trouble in the building by the initiation of alarm devices as opposed to a direct signal.

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)].