DECISION NO. 2002A006-137 (2002A007-138; 2003A001-139)
Date: February 25, 2003
The issue before the tribunal was a premises being used as a rooming operation located in a high-rise building regulated by Section 9.6 of the Fire Code. The fire department served an inspection order, which identified remedial work. The inspection order was appealed and modified by the Fire Marshal’s Delegate. The owner subsequently appealed this decision to the Fire Safety Commission.
This is an 8-storey high residential condominium building containing 175
residential units. Each suite is two storeys and has a balcony on each
level. The suites and public corridors are separated from adjacent areas by
masonry fire separations. Reportedly, the building is provided with smoke
control measures in the exit stairwells. Centrally located gas-fired
furnaces deliver heat to residential units through steel ducts.
The building is served by exit stairwells that lead directly to the outside.
Exit signs and emergency lighting are provided in corridors and exit
stairwells. Each suite is provided with suite entrance doors on both of its
levels.
The building is provided with a zoned, single-stage fire alarm system that is monitored by an outside agency. Smoke or heat detection is provided in the stairwells and service rooms. Alarm devices are provided in the corridors and in each suite located above the upper level entrance door. Manual pull stations are provided at each exit. An annunciator panel is located in the main lobby. The fire alarm system is provided with emergency power from a generator. A single-station smoke alarm is provided on each level of each residential suite.
The building is provided with a standpipe system that provides coverage
throughout, and automatic sprinkler protection is provided in the garage.
Fire department connections for these systems are located close to the main
building entrance and close to street hydrants. Fire department access is
provided to all sides of the building. Hose cabinets contain portable fire
extinguishers. A “yellow hat” firefighter's elevator provides access to all
levels.
The suite at issue is located in the west section of the building with the main suite entrance door on the 2nd floor. It contains three bedrooms on its lower level and four bedrooms on its upper level. One bedroom door is provided with a keyed passage set. The other bedroom doors are provided with chains that require keys to disengage them on the hallway side. Each level has a bathroom and the shared kitchen is located on the lower level.
The walls separating the bedrooms from adjacent areas within the suite are constructed of studs protected on both sides by drywall membranes. Other interior walls are masonry or drywall construction. Some bedroom walls have openings provided with plastic sliding panels used for ventilation purposes.
Bedroom and bathroom doors are a hollow wood type that are less than 45 mm thick, and are supported on wood frames. Bedroom doors are provided with self-closing devices and latches. Bathroom doors are provided with latches. Sliding doors provide access to the hall closet on the upper level. The kitchen is open to the surrounding area.
Each level is provided with a 12A, 5BC rated portable fire extinguisher.
The owner claimed that the inspection order is invalid and that the premises do not operate as a rooming house.
The owner indicated that he has complied with some of the conditions as set out in the Inspection Order but is waiting for the outcome of the hearing decision.
The fire department identified the unit as being used as a rooming house, and having inadequate fire safety measures when compared with Section 9.3 of the Fire Code.
The Commission ruled that the Review Decision of the Fire Marshal’s Delegate be upheld and ordered that the work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the fire department before June 30, 2003. The decision reads as follows:
Alternative measures to Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 may be approved by the fire department in consideration of existing construction and alternatives permissible under Section 9.3, 9.5 and 9.6 of the Fire Code.
Based on the evidence presented, the tribunal believed that the property
was occupied as a boarding, lodging and rooming house as defined in Section
9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code, within a building that is governed by Section
9.6 of the Ontario Fire Code. At the time of the inspections, lodging was
provided for more than three persons in return of remuneration or the
provision of services or both, and lodging rooms do not have both bathrooms
and kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of individual occupants.
The tribunal also believes that the public is entitled to a minimum level of fire safety in any building in the province of Ontario.
|
||||||||||||||||||
