blank space

Fire Code Commission Decision Summary

DECISION NO.96A005-112
DATE:September 24, 1996

SUBJECT MATTER:

The subject property is a single storey, plus basement house of wood frame and brick veneer construction on a masonry block foundation. The house contains two dwelling units, one on the ground floor and one in the basement, each with independent eating, sleeping, cooking and living facilities. The units share an interior stairway which leads to a side door and a hallway in the basement. This hallway provides access to a common laundry space and other rooms in the lower dwelling unit. Interior walls consist of painted gypsum board, plaster or panelling on wood studs. Ceilings in the lower unit vary between gypsum board attached to floor joists, acoustic ceiling tiles or unfinished. Doors serving both units are thick hollow core wood doors with conventional latch sets. The upper unit is equipped with a single battery operated smoke alarm, which at the time of inspection was not operational. The lower unit is equipped with two battery operated smoke alarms, both operational. The upper unit exits directly through the front door and both units can exit via the shared interior stairway to the side door. The building did not have the required fire separation between the two dwelling units, or the shared exit stairs.

The fire department refused a request for an extension of time due to the lack of fire separation, which is an important factor in slowing the spread of fire and providing adequate time for escape.

REASON FOR APPEAL:

The owner appealed the refusal and the subsequent informal review, stating that due to financial hardship they could not comply with the legislation. The owner requested a one year extension to provide a 30-minute fire separation on the basement ceiling, in the shared exit and hallway and between dwelling units, and to have the premises inspected by Ontario Hydro.

COMMISSION'S DECISION:

The Commission upheld the informal review, which required all work to be completed by October 15, 1996. The Commission considered it unacceptable for the tenants to be exposed to the present deficient level of fire safety in this property for a further period of time.