DECISION NO.96A003-111
DATE:July 11, 1996
The subject premises comprise eight similar highrise residential
apartment buildings ranging in height from seven to 17 storeys with 110-300
suites per building, constructed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. In
September 1993, the property owner engaged a consultant to formulate
retrofit options for compliance with Section 9.6 of the Ontario Fire Code (OFC).
Typical deficiencies included self-closing devices on suite doors, emergency
lighting, fire alarm detection, voice communication, sprinkler protection,
and fire separations.
A request for an extension of time was submitted to the fire department in
January 1995, and included a proposed schedule for compliance by October
1996. The fire department indicated the request for an extension of time
would not be approved since it was made after October 9, 1994.
The Office of the Fire Marshal (OFM) refused to consider an application for
appeal for an extension of time, as the extension of time request to the
fire department occurred after October 9, 1994.
Due to the extent of work necessary for retrofit compliance in all eight buildings, the owner requested an extension of time to October 1996, as allowed for in the OFC. The owner also appealed the fire department requirement for emergency lighting in the underground parking garage, as it was not consistent with a published opinion by the OFM. The owner is not financially viable enough to cover the cost of demolition and removal of the resultant debris.
A Fire Safety Commission hearing was held on July 11, 1996. The
Commission decided to hear the appeal for an extension of time based on
evidence that the retrofit audit inspection and report were substantially
complete by October 1994. As well, much of the corrective retrofit work had
already begun by this same date. The tribunal noted however, that “they do
not consider that there should be an automatic right to an extension of time
where an application was not made prior to October 1994”.
Based on circumstances that the retrofit work was mostly complete and the
requested original extension date of October 1996 was imminent, the tribunal
accepted the request for a three month extension.
Based on Fire Code Sentence 9.6.1.1.(2) and evidence presented by the
appellant, the tribunal determined that emergency lighting in the parking
garage is not required since it does not affect the life safety of the
residential occupancy.
|
||||||||||||||||||
