[Dave Baker]

I would suggest that a building permit is required; this would be a change of use from most existing occupancies. A fire alarm system would be required as it is a contained use area. The fire alarm system design should incorporate the necessary fail safes coupled with an appropriate fire safety plan, IMHO.

[Dave Baker]

We (Orillia) have used the originals (new fine amount) of course, failure to prepare written record of test and CO alarms. It is early yet but I see tickets to tenants for failure to notify landlord (smoke & CO) being applied.

Interestingly enough because of a hole in our open air burning bylaw short form wording we have been experimenting with Part I Summons. We have served several so far and will see how it works out in the Courts. But because of this we may be issuing a few for OFC offences that are not already in the list of ticketable offences.

[Dave Baker]

Karin,

Has your Municipality considered a false fire alarm bylaw? We have been using this to try and reduce the number of call outs for nuisance alarms. Under certain circumstances the owner of the property may end up being billed at MTO (per apparatus) rates after so many calls that have “no reasonable cause”. The CFO would also have the option to allow the money to be spent instead to make alterations to reduce the risk of a false fire alarm.

In this case we would probably require the replacement of the smoke detector with a heat detector after the 2nd call, or the owner risks paying for the manpower and apparatus to attend.

Regardless, it is something to consider depending on your circumstances.

[Dave Baker]

Hey Armando,

Were the hard wired interconnect alarms installed for conformance with the OBC? In other words, if the building is in compliance with the OBC then 9.5 does not apply, so maintenance requirements apply. This may not be a OFC issue, sounds like it requires a building permit application?

If it is a retrofit application I think the alarms have to be on an electrical circuit with no disconnect switch etc..

Let us know how it works out.

[Dave Baker]

OBC 3.2.4.6.(1) refers you to Appendix A indicating that a verification is required. A VI form, Above and Below Ground Test and Materials Certificate, engineers review letter and ESA etc…all form part of the commissioning. It has been our policy to test systems anywhere from a complete test to spot checking depending on our comfort level with installation process.

I hope this helps.

[Dave Baker]

I have attached the pertinent sections of our note taking OG. It should be noted that your municipality probably has a file retention by-law and may contain requirements for documents that must be added to property files. Our municipality has begun an electronic file system and we are slowly moving toward record retention digitally. It is a slow process but eventually the volume of documents will necessitate the need to go digital.

The other issue to consider is inspections vs. investigations. Inspection notes for us are typically kept with the property file. Investigation notes are typically kept in the officers issued personal note book. Keep in mind that all may be subject to FOI requests.

On a side note, I am involved in a POA court case where the defendant will be arguing to have my notes (containing incriminating statements) thrown out because I failed to inform them that I was conducting an investigation. Though there is no legal requirement to do this, there is reference either under common law or Charter challenge (I can’t remember which). The outcome should be interesting and I will post results in the new year.

Suppression staff each have issued personal note books.

“Notes shall be recorded in Fire Prevention personnel’s official notebook or on Follow-up Report forms as attached to an Inspection Order. Where notes are necessary and pertinent to the property or location they will become part of the property file. Fire Prevention personnel may be required to support their notes in a court of law and may be subject to full disclosure.”

“Fire Prevention personnel must be able to prove that:
 notes were made by you
 notes were made at the time of the event or shortly thereafter
 there are no changes, alterations or deletions to your notes”

“PROCEDURE:
All inspections and re-inspections shall be recorded by Fire Prevention personnel on the forms provided, and as follows:
 Entries of your notes shall be made as soon as possible at the time of the events.
 Each entry shall bear the date, time and location.
 Entries shall be made in black or blue ink.
 There shall be a chronological dated history attached to inspection reports.
 Inspection notes/files shall be filed by address.
 Always sign and date entries made in your inspection notes.
 Do not leave spaces between entries.”

I hope this helps.

[Dave Baker]

Further to that after a little more reading, there are code changes for “disable” and “Replace with reduce level of detection” in Subsection 6.3.3. This will have an impact on short form wording I suspect. Part I ticketable offences for items 4 and 5 may not be possible.

Comments?

[Dave Baker]

It is my understanding that if your municipality had a bylaw (now no longer valid as the Prov. Reg. exists) requiring CO alarms then the new OFC maintenance requirements are enforceable under Part III of POA as of October 15, 2014 (until short form wording becomes available from Min. of Att. Gen. office).

As for smoke alarms, 2.13.2.1 is fine for ticketable offences as the short form wording is not affected. However, Subsection 6.3.3 has been amended. The short form wording for 6.3.3.2., 6.3.3.3., 6.3.3.4., 6.3.3.5. may not have changed but the code reference for the offences has. Schedule 17.4 of R.R.O 1990, Reg. 950 includes the reference number associated with the short form wording. I am not so sure we can use the short form wording and adjust the Code reference number, I sure hope so.

Comments anyone?

[Dave Baker]

Interesting article. Wood is renewable of course but I am sure quick growth lumber is part of the calculation. The other thing that would concern me is finding a nest of carpenter ants on the 2nd storey.

[Dave Baker]

Mark,
We have a noise bylaw that restricts the detonation of all fireworks. http://www.orillia.ca/en/livinginorillia/resources/Noisebylaw.pdf
The bylaw allows for a person (or entity) to make application for an exemption. We currently only have 2, Canada Day and our winter carnival. Both are “display firework” presentations. We recently had a city resident make application for a “consumer fireworks” presentation which was received as informational by council. In effect it was a denial of the exemption.

We also have a policy under our Policy manual that sets out the requirements for qualifications required for a Display fireworks presentation:

THAT all firework displays within the City of Orillia adhere to the following conditions:

1. A qualified fireworks supervisor shall make application to the Orillia Fire Department that is to include:

a) Name of the supervisor, associated firework certificate number (including expiry date), and level of qualification

b) Event sponsor, including name, address and contact information

c) Proposed location, date and time of display

d) Site plan, and

e) Proof of insurance.

2. All aspects of the fireworks display shall be approved and monitored by the Fire Chief or his designate(s).

3. Individuals responsible for the set-up, operation, dismantling, clean up, storage and transportation of display fireworks for an approved event shall be certified in conformance with the latest edition of the Display Fire Works Manual.

4. The operation of the display shall be in conformance with Chapter 3 of the most current edition of the Display Fire Works Manual.

5. All other activities associated with a fireworks display shall be in conformance with the most current edition of the Display Fire Works Manual.

I hope this helps.

[Dave Baker]

Hey Scott,

Fun Question. We dealt with something similar during a hospital renovation. If I remember right I think they even stored archived X-ray film in several for a short period of time.

In our case we worked with the CBO and maintained 3m or 10′ separation from any structures. Keep in mind that consideration should be given to the cladding and openings of the nearest structure, its occupancy and is it protected by hoarding. Your CBO may be considering them buildings already as part of the permit process for the construction taking place.

Whether temporary or permanent consideration should also be given to Part 4 and Part 2 with regards to the storage and how the container is being used.

I hope this helps.

[Author]

Posts