DECISION NO. 2003A002-141
Date: September 18, 2003
The issue before the tribunal was an Inspection Order served on the owner
of a building that was converted from a house to a seniors’ residence. The
Inspection Order identified eight items that needed to comply with Part 9 of
the Ontario Building Code . These items included improvements to exiting,
the installation of a fire alarm system, the provision of a kitchen hood
exhaust system, installation of closures with a fire-protection rating and
self-closing devices, proper fire separation between garage and residential
area and proper fire separation of a basement storage room.
The owner appealed this decision to the Fire Safety Commission.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
The building is three storeys in height, has a basement and a total building
area of 380 m˛. It was originally constructed in 1905 as a house providing
accommodation for the owner’s family and domestic staff. It would be
classified as a combustible building under the current Ontario Building
Code.
The current owner converted the building into a retirement home for seniors
in 2001 and 2002. There are eight resident suites in the building. Five are
located on the second floor and three are located on the third floor. Each
suite contains a bedroom and a bathroom and is leased from the owner under a
separate lease. The housekeeper also lives in the building and is provided
with a bedroom in the basement. An elevator was installed to serve all
floors, including the basement. Cooking and eating facilities are located on
the ground floor.
There are two open staircases in the building; one connecting all floors
while the other connects the first and second floors only. Interconnected
smoke alarms, self-contained emergency lighting units and fire extinguishers
are provided throughout the building. Exit signs are not provided.
The owner has limited the total occupancy of the resident suites to a
maximum of eight persons. Conditions of residence include the residents
being ambulatory and not requiring or receiving ongoing care due to age,
mental or physical limitations. However, staff assist residents with
day-to-day needs upon request. Staff consists of the live-in housekeeper,
cooks and cleaners.
REASON FOR APPEAL
The owner feels that the requirements set out in the Inspection Order are
excessive and inappropriate. He contends that the building should be
classified as a boarding, lodging and rooming house and should be required
to comply with Section 9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code.
APPELLANT'S POSITION
The owner indicated that every effort was made to comply with code
requirements by consulting with local officials prior to modifying the
building. The owner also indicated that he is prepared to install a second
exit on the third floor, which he believes is the biggest concern under the
requirement of Section 9.3 of the Ontario Fire Code. He is also willing to
comply with the requirements as summarized in the OFC 9.3 analysis of the
Inspection Report prepared by the Commission Delegate.
RESPONDENT'S POSITION
The Fire Chief stated that he wants to make sure that the residents in the
building are safe from any fire hazard and identified the following issues,
which he believed would have significant impact on the life safety of the
occupants:
COMMISSION'S RULING
The Commission agreed with the intent of the Inspection Order, with the
exception of the need for a kitchen exhaust hood, which is not required
according to the testimony presented.
As a result, the Commission ordered that the Inspection Order be modified as per
the following extracts from the Commission Delegate Inspection Report, which
provides a clear description for the required work.
A building permit is required and the work shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the fire department before June 30, 2004.
REASON
Based on the evidence presented, the tribunal believes that this work is
necessary to provide a reasonable level of life safety for the maximum of eight
residents plus staff in the building.
|
||||||||||||||||||
