APPEAL NO: 93A007-097
DATE: November 25, 1993
Appeal of an informal review - all exterior openings from grade shall be boarded up to the satisfaction of the Fire Department; security of the building shall be maintained at all times the building is unoccupied.
The original building was constructed around 1900 but was essentially destroyed (the inter interior and back half) in a fire in 1988. At that time, the building was of wood frame construction, 2250 square feet in area and contained a restaurant and apartment on the main floor and rooming house type occupancy on the second floor. After the fire the back half of the building was removed leaving 1200 square feet with no access to the second floor. There is a 12 foot and 10 foot laneway on either side of the building separating it from neighbouring combination business/residential type occupancies. The building is unoccupied with door and window openings boarded up with either plywood or chipboard and the main floor entrance door is secured with a padlock. The stucco finish on three sides of the building is in disrepair with the final side still showing signs of fire damage. The main floor interior is an open space consisting of wood stud framing and wood plank or chipboard sheathing. The electrical panel is located on the main floor. There is power in the building with several extension cords used to provide light and heat. There is a 3 x 5 foot opening in the floor providing access to the basement. The basement, which has walls and a floor of concrete, is used for storage, including some building materials and two electric baseboard heaters, one of which is operational. Since the building is currently in an unfinished state and unoccupied, there is no fire safety equipment on site.
Expectations of the Fire Department exceed what should be considered reasonable.
The building has not been repaired due to extenuating circumstances; waiting for changes in the parking by-laws and financial constraints. The appellant also feels that the building does not endanger any neighbouring building as none are adjoining.
The building is centrally located in the business area of town and sustained major fire damage in October, 1988. The building remains unrepaired, deteriorating and vulnerable to vandalism making it especially liable to fire.
The Commission did not rule on this appeal. During the hearing, the
appellant argued that his appeal had been prejudiced because his request for
blank summons had been denied by the Commission. Counsel for the Commission
advised that the appellant had been instructed to provide names and reasons
for the summons and if the Commission deemed the summons necessary then
summons would have been provided. There had been ample time for the
appellant to provide names and reasons prior to the hearing but he had
failed to. The Commission ruled that the appellant's appeal had not been
prejudiced by the refusal to provide blank summons and that the Commission
was concerned solely with the technical and life safety aspects of the
appeal. The Commission advised that if after all evidence had been given and
some information vital to the hearing was still missing, summons would be
issued to ensure that all information required for the Commission to make
its decision had been presented. It was then decided that the hearing should
continue. At this point, the appellant withdrew his appeal.
|
||||||||||||||||||
