Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Ontario Building Code > Appeals & Approvals > Building Code Commission > Rulings of the Building Code Commission > 2000 > BCC Ruling No. 00-39-771

Follow us

BCC Ruling No. 00-39-771

Email this page

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION DECISION ON B.C.C. #00-39-771

IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 3.1.5.22.(2), Clauses 3.2.4.8.(2)(b) and 3.2.4.11.(2)(b), Sentence 3.2.4.16.(1) and Article 3.3.1.7. of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99 and 205/00 (the "Ontario Building Code").

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mr. Paul Munro, President, Cornerstone Builders Limited, Belleville, Ontario, for the resolution of a dispute with Mr. Dan Mousseau, Chief Building Official, City of Burlington, Ontario, to determine whether the as-constructed building, which does not provide protection on a floor area with a barrier-free path of travel, which has a combustible canopy and which does not offer a separate heat detection system, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.3.1.7., Sentence 3.1.5.22.(2) and Clause 3.2.4.11.(2)(b) respectively of the Ontario Building Code at 2109 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario.

APPLICANT
Mr. Paul Munro, President
Cornerstone Builders Limited
Belleville, Ontario

RESPONDENT
Mr. Dan Mousseau
Chief Building Official
City of Burlington

PANEL
Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair
Mr. Michael Steele
Mr. Donald Pratt

PLACE
Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING
August 10th, 2000

DATE OF RULING
August 10th, 2000

APPEARANCES
Mr. Robert J. Dyck, President
Robert J. Dyck Architect & Engineer Incorporated
Kitchener, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant


Mr. Brad Swainsbury
Building Inspector
City of Burlington
Designate for the Respondent

RULING

1. The Applicant

Mr. Paul Munro, President, Cornerstone Builders Limited, Belleville, Ontario, has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 and has recently constructed a residential condominium building known as the Martha Street Apartments at 2109 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario.

2. Description of Construction

The building in dispute is a new building classified as having a major occupancy of Group C - residential. It also includes an ancillary Group A, Division 2 assembly occupancy located on the ground floor. The L-shaped structure is described as five storeys in building height and has a building area of 880 m2. The building was constructed in accordance with the requirements of Article 3.2.2.43. and consists of noncombustible construction and is equipped with a fire alarm system, a standpipe and hose system and a noncompliant electrically supervised sprinkler system (see below).

The building is intended as a condominium for elderly persons. As a result, there are no kitchen facilities in the suites and the dining facilities are located on the ground floor. The building is supervised 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The construction in dispute varies depending on whether the building is considered to be sprinklered. This situation arises because while there is a sprinkler system installed throughout the building, certain aspects of its design (discussed below) do not comply with the OBC. The following represents differing descriptions of the construction in dispute based on the building being either an unsprinklered or sprinklered facility.

As an unsprinklered building, the construction in dispute would involve three areas.

The first is the lack protection on floor areas with a barrier-free path of travel. Since the building is new construction, a barrier-free path of travel has been provided on every floor served by an elevator. The protection of this path of travel can be accomplished in several ways; providing a protected elevator, or areas of refuge or a Code conforming sprinkler system. These areas of refuge may be provided as zones within the building that are protected by separations having a certain fire- resistance rating or on the balconies of suites. However, because the structure does not conform to the elevator requirements in Sentence 3.3.1.7.(1), and currently does not have any areas of refuge, and nor does the sprinkler system comply with Code, the barrier-free path of travel is not protected.

The second area of dispute would be the two canopies or marquees that have been constructed on the exterior of the building over its main entrances, one on the north and one on the south. Both marquees are of combustible materials and project more than 1.2 m from the exterior exposing face of the building. Moreover, the windows above and around the marquees have not been protected by wired glass.

The third area of dispute would be the lack of a separate heat detection system. Currently, the provision of heat detection is being provided through the noncompliant sprinkler system. (A separate heat detection system can be waived according to Article 3.2.4.15. if the building is equipped with an electrically supervised sprinkler system designed and installed as per Code.)

If the building is sprinklered, on the other hand, the construction in dispute would involve, among other things, the sprinkler system the Applicant has installed throughout the building. Specifically, the dispute regarding the sprinkler system is the fact that it was not equipped with waterflow detection devices per floor. Instead, there is only a single waterflow detection device that serves the entire building.

Related to this, is that the sprinkler system, lacking waterflow detection devices, cannot provide separate zone indication on the fire alarm system's annunciator panel. However, in order to achieve separate zone indication on the annunciator panel as well as provide additional early warning to residents and the fire department, the Applicant has extended the interconnected smoke detection system required in other parts of the building (per 3.2.4.11.(1)) into the resident suites. The provision of these smoke detectors are in addition to the smoke alarms that have been installed in the suites in accordance with Article 3.2.4.21.

As well, neither marquee has been equipped with sprinkler protection either inside or underneath.

3. Dispute

From a Building Code perspective the issues at dispute also depend on whether the building is considered as sprinklered or unsprinklered. According to OBC 3.2.2.43., the structure can be built either with or without a sprinkler system. In the case at hand, the building has been equipped with a sprinkler system, albeit one that is not fully compliant with the OBC. Scenarios articulating the issues concerning the building both as an unsprinklered and sprinklered facility will be presented below. This is followed by a determination by the Commission as to the dispute(s) it sees before it.

Again, assuming at first that the building is unsprinklered, the issues are whether the as-constructed building, which does not provide protection on floor areas with a barrier-free path of travel, which has a combustible canopy and which does not offer a separate heat detection system, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.3.1.7., Sentence 3.1.5.22.(2) and Clause 3.2.4.11.(2)(b) respectively of the Ontario Building Code.

The first provision, Article 3.3.1.7., "Protection on Floor Areas with a Barrier-Free Path of Travel", sets out the requirements for fire safety on floors that have a barrier-free path of travel. Sentence (1) of this Article stipulates that every floor with a barrier-free path of travel above or below the ground floor shall either be provided with a protected elevator described in that Article, or divided into at least two fire separated zones, i.e., areas of refuge. Sentence (2) allows buildings with residential occupancies to waive the requirements of Sentence (1) if balconies that can be used as areas of refuge are built. As well, Sentence (3) permits that both the requirements of Sentences (1) and (2) can be waived if the building is sprinklered. The building in dispute is not equipped with the prescribed protected elevator, nor is it designed to include areas of refuge on each floor area or on the balconies, and it is also not considered to be sprinklered as per the OBC. As a result, compliance is not achieved with any of the options in Sentences (1), (2) and (3).

Sentence 3.1.5.22.(2) permits combustible marquees of a certain size to be attached to the exterior of buildings that are required to be of noncombustible construction as long as every opening in the exposed wall within 4.5 m horizontally and 9 m vertically above the marquee is protected with wired glass as per the Supplementary Guidelines. Since the window openings in the north and south walls near the marquees are not protected in this fashion, the marquees, as constructed, do not conform with Code. Sentence 3.1.5.22.(3) provides an exemption to the window protection requirements of Sentence (2) if the building is sprinklered. However, the sprinkler system has not been extended to the marquees and even if it were, due to the nonconformance of the sprinkler system, this requirement could not be waived.

The last provision, Clause 3.2.4.11.(2)(b), sets out the requirements for a separate heat detection system. This provision stipulates that if a fire alarm system is required, then heat detectors must be installed in every suite and rooms located in all other areas not within the suites in a Group C building higher than three storeys. The exception to this requirement is found in Article 3.2.4.15. which states that if the building has been sprinklered, a separate heat detection system is not required. This relaxation is allowed because in order to actuate, the performance of a sprinkler system relies on detecting heat. Again, without a Code conforming sprinkler system the relaxation found in Article 3.2.4.15. for a heat detection system is not applicable.

If the building is sprinklered, the issues are then whether the as-installed sprinkler system, which does not include waterflow detection devices nor the capacity for zoned indication on the annunciator panel, and whether the unsprinklered canopy provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.2.4.16.(1), Clause 3.2.4.8.(2)(b) and Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) of the OBC.

Sentence 3.2.4.16.(1) is the provision that sets out the requirements for water flow detection devices. It states they must be installed as part of a sprinkler system, and if an annunciator is required, that the devices perform so as to indicate certain zones of the sprinkler system. Clauses (a) and (b) set out the area limits for the zoned coverage of the sprinkler system through the use of the waterflow devices. In the subject building, a waterflow detection device is required per floor since the floor areas do not exceed the area limits as specified in NFPA 13 (which is referenced in Sentence 3.2.4.16.(1)). These devices allow a sprinkler system to indicate where fire is detected. As mentioned, only a single waterflow detection device serves the entire building.

Related to this is how the sprinkler system, lacking waterflow detection devices, works with the fire alarm system, in particular the requirement for separate zone indication on the annunciator panel. As the building is required by Articles 3.2.4.1. and 3.2.4.8. to have a fire alarm system with an annunciator panel, the actuation of the sprinkler system (required or not) and with it the alarm system, must provide separate zone indication on the annunciator panel.

With respect to annunciator and zone indication requirements, these are addressed by Article 3.2.4.8. Sentence (1) of which stipulates, with a few exceptions that are not applicable here, that as part of a fire alarm system, an annunciator panel be installed in a specified location within a building. Sentence (2) mandates that the annunciator shall provide separate zone indication determining the area in which the fire alarm has been actuated. Clauses (a) and (b) of Sentence (2) then follow by setting out the size of floor area that may be covered by a zone in unsprinklered and sprinklered buildings respectively. In either case, sprinklered or unsprinklered, since the floor areas in Subclauses (a)(ii) and (b)(ii) are larger than the individual floor areas of the subject building, the zone indication provided must be per storey as in either Subclause (a)(i) or (b)(i). (It should be noted that the area limits set out in Clause (2)(b) are identical to those for sprinkler zone coverage mandated through the use of waterflow detection devices in Sentence 3.2.4.16.(1).) Without the waterflow detection devices, the sprinkler system in the disputed building, when activated, is not able to provide separate zone (or floor by floor) indication on the fire alarm system's annunciator panel.

Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) states that sprinkler systems must meet NFPA 13, the "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems". This Standard, specifically Sentence 4-13.7, addresses "Exterior Roofs and Canopies" and mandates that sprinklers must be installed on the underside of exterior combustible roofs and canopies that project more than 1.2 m. In addition, NFPA 4-13.1.1. requires that all concealed spaces including the exterior combustible canopies be sprinklered, i.e. a canopy must be sprinklered on the interior as well. Since both canopies are combustible and extend more than 1.2 m from the building's exterior face, they lack sprinkler protection on both on the interior and the underside of the exterior.

Having described the various issues, the Commission's approach to them must now be discussed.

It is noted that at the outset the Applicant appealed the commission seeking a ruling on the sufficiency of compliance of his alternative sprinkler system with the requirements for sprinklering found in the OBC. There are two considerations for the Commission here. The first is to determine the nature of this sufficiency of compliance application, i.e., whether the construction in dispute should be seen as an alternative to OBC standards or rather as deficient in terms of those requirements. The second is to determine the focus of the technical dispute.

On the first consideration, we view the sufficiency of compliance question in respect of the disputed construction as one of perceived deficiency. In our opinion, it is clear that without the waterflow detection devices to service each floor separately and the ability to provide independent zone indication on the annunciator panel, the as-installed sprinkler system fails to comply with Sentences 3.2.4.16.(1) and 3.2.4.8.(2). Moreover, the design of the installed system seems more consistent with earlier versions of the OBC, which did not require waterflow detection devices when installing sprinklers in this type of structure.

Regarding the focus of the technical dispute, the Commission believes that the sprinkler system is not the principle issue. We take this position because the Building Code permits the subject building to be constructed either with or without a sprinkler system. And if a sprinkler system is installed (even if not required) then the building is allowed to benefit from certain reductions in the construction standards elsewhere in the building. In the present case, for example, a protected elevator or areas of refuge would not be required if a Code compliant sprinkler system was installed in the building. This relaxation of certain construction standards through the provision of sprinklering applies whether the building is required to be sprinklered or is being done so voluntarily. Of paramount importance, however, in order to qualify for such reductions is that the sprinkler system offered must meet Code. Because the sprinkler system is in fact deficient, according to Code, the building should therefore not enjoy the various permitted relaxations.

On this point, the Commission would like to emphasize the words of the Housing Development and Building Branch's Technical Background Information memo submitted respecting this case.

The more fundamental issue that must be addressed prior to any discussions of compliance with Code provisions, is that all building systems must be capable of performing their functions in an expected manner and do not mislead or give a false sense of security to the current and future users as well as to the emergency response teams. Existence of a building system, such as a fire alarm or sprinkler system, naturally triggers an expectation that the system performs according to the Building Code provisions. Over the life time of the building, this assumption plays a constant role in most of the decisions made related to the building. Therefore, unlike previous editions of the OBC, the current Code reflects the concern in appropriate provisions by using phrases such as "where...system is installed,..." rather than stating "where...system is required,..."

As a result, the Commission must regard the building as if it did not benefit from sprinkler protection. Accordingly, the alleged deficiencies for an unsprinklered building have been identified. They are; the lack of the protection on floor areas with a barrier-free path of travel, the combustible canopies and the lack of a separate heat detection system.

With these perceived deficiencies in mind the Commission must then turn its attention to the compensating measures being offered. This brings us to the sprinkler system which is not a requirement in this building and can thus be offered as compensation. However, as discussed above, the sprinkler system too has deficiencies. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the BCC, if the disputed building is regarded as unsprinklered, the as-constructed sprinkler system can be viewed as a compensating measure for the supposed deficiencies therein. As well, the Commission must consider the Applicant's argument that the noncompliant sprinkler system provides a heat detection function and that the extension of the smoke detection system into the resident suites provides separate zone indication on the annunciator panel.

Therefore, the question before the Commission then is whether the said building, regarded as not benefiting from sprinkler protection and with certain alleged deficiencies, that is being compensated by, among other things, an installed yet deficient sprinkler system, achieves sufficiency of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code at 2109 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario.

 

4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code

Article 3.1.5.22. Canopies Having Combustible Elements

(2) Except as permitted in Sentence (3), exterior marquees, not greater than 7.5 m (24 ft 7 in) from ground level to the top of the marquee, having combustible elements other than fabrics or films conforming to Sentence are permitted on a building required to be of noncombustible construction, provided every opening in the exposed wall of the building above the marquee is protected with wired glass in accordance with the Supplementary Guidelines where these openings are within

  1. 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) horizontally of the marquee, and
  2. 9 m (29 ft 6 in) vertically above the marquee.

(3) The protection required by Sentence (2) is permitted to be waived if the building is sprinklered.

Article 3.2.4.8. Annunciator and Zone Indication

(1) Except as permitted in Sentences (3) to (5), an annunciator shall be installed in close proximity to a building entrance that faces a street or an access route for fire department vehicles that complies with Sentence 3.2.5.5.(1).

(2) Except as permitted by Sentence (6), the annunciator required by Sentence (1) shall have separate zone indication and of the actuation of the alarm initiating devices in each,

  1. floor area so that in a building that is not sprinklered, the area of coverage for each zone is neither more than

i. one storey, nor

ii. 2 000 m2 (21,500 m2 ),

  1. floor area so that in a building that is sprinklered, the area of coverage for each zone is neither more than

i. one storey, nor

ii. the system area limits as specified in NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems

Clause 3.2.4.11. Smoke and Heat Detectors

(2) Except as provided in Article 3.2.4.15, if a fire alarm system is required, heat detectors shall be installed in

  1. except in a hotel, in every suite, and every room not located within a suite, in portions of buildings classified as Group C major occupancy and more than 3 storeys in building height, and

Article 3.2.4.16. System Monitoring

(1) An automatic sprinkler system shall be equipped with waterflow detecting devices and, if an annunciator is required by Article 3.2.4.8., shall be installed so that each device serves

a. not more than one storey, and

b. an area on each storey that is not more than the system area limits as specified in NFPA 13, "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems".

(2) Waterflow detecting devices required by Sentence (1) shall be connected to initiate an alert signal or an alarm signal on the fire alarm system if a fire alarm is provided.

Sentence 3.2.5.13. Automatic Sprinkler Systems

(1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2), (3) and (4), an automatic sprinkler system shall be designed, constructed, installed and tested in conformance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems . (See Appendix A.)

Article 3.3.1.7. Protection on Floor Areas with a Barrier-Free Path of Travel

(1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (3), every floor area above or below the first storey that has a barrier-free path of travel shall

  1. be served by an elevator

i. conforming to Sentences 3.2.6.9.(4) to (6),

ii. protected against fire in conformance with Clauses 3.2.6.9.(3)(b) or (c), and

iii. in a building over 3 storeys in building height, protected against smoke movement so that the hoistway will not contain more than 1% by volume of contaminated air from a fire floor during a period of 2 h after the start of a fire, assuming an outdoor temperature equal to the January design temperature on a 2.5% basis determined in conformance with Subsection 2.5.1., or

  1. be divided into at least 2 zones by fire separations conforming to Sentences (4), (5) and (6) so that

i. persons with physical disabilities can be accommodated in each zone,

ii. the travel distance from any point in one zone to a doorway leading to another zone shall be not more than the value for travel distance permitted by Sentence 3.4.2.5.(1) for the occupancy classification of the zone, and

iii. a barrier-free path of travel is provided to an exit. (See Appendix A.)

(2) In residential occupancies, the requirements of Sentence (1) are waived if a balcony conforming to Sentence (7) is provided for each suite, except for suites on the storey containing the barrier-free entrance described in Article 3.8.1.2.

(3) The requirements of Sentences (1) and (2) are waived when the building is sprinklered.

5. Applicant's Position

The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the subject sprinkler system was installed in the condominium on a voluntary basis to provide extra protection, as it was not required by the Ontario Building Code. However, he noted that the sprinkler system is not equipped with waterflow detecting devices that serve each storey and initiate an alarm as required by the new and revised Code Article 3.2.4.16. Nevertheless, he argued that as the building stands, it provides a higher level of life safety than that required by Code. An active suppression system, even one that does not conform to the letter of the OBC, is superior than a passive heat and smoke detection system as is required. He stated that if this application was made a few years ago, the owner would be applauded for voluntary sprinklering. However, due to the higher Code requirements of Article 3.2.4.16, there is no distinguishment between voluntary or required sprinklering.

The Agent indicated that they had originally approached the municipality regarding the sprinklering issue using Section 2.7 "Equivalents", of the OBC and argued that the as-built system was as good, if not better than that required by Code. The municipality, he stated, supported the voluntary installation of the sprinkler system, but because of the wording of the OBC provisions could not accept it. The Agent then noted that their appeal of this dispute to the BCC as a sufficiency of compliance argument is similar. It is based on the view that their system is superior and should be seen not as deficient but rather as an alternative method of conformance.

The Agent continued by noting that Article 3.2.2.43., under which the building was reviewed, allows the structure to be unsprinklered and that the size of the building is considerably under the threshold for required sprinklering. He added that the ground floor has a common dining area, but he asserted that it is not an Group A occupancy. Even if it were, only that floor would have to be sprinklered and the remainder of the building can still be viewed as being voluntarily sprinklered.

The Agent then discussed an email he had received from Alistair Aikman at the National Research Council. The email, he stated, offered that with the expansion of sprinkler use into more buildings, the NRC realized there was concern about their reliability and the possibility of water damage. As a response, certain Code (NBC) changes were made such as "full electrical supervision of the sprinkler system by means of a fire alarm system" and "by requiring storey by storey zoning with waterflow switches for each zoned storey." Based on this, the Agent argued that the disputed waterflow detection devices became a requirement, in part, because of concerns for property damage. He insisted that the subject systems within the building, the voluntary sprinkler system and the enhanced early warning capacity, are designed more so to provide greater safety for the occupants than to protect property.

The Agent then asked the Commission which type of suite they would prefer to see their family members in - one that complies with the Code and offers no sprinklering and no in-suite smoke detection, or their's which provides additional early warning with the smoke detectors and suppression through the sprinkler system. He stated that a negative ruling by the Commission may send the wrong message to developers who may want to voluntarily sprinkler a building. He then noted that unfortunately one way to conform with the OBC would be to cap the sprinkler system, but he expressed hoped that a BCC decision would not force him to do so.

Regarding the use of smoke detectors in the suites in lieu of heat detectors as required by Clause 3.2.4.11.(2)(b), the Agent indicated that the smoke detectors are wired to the annunciator panel and provide zoned indication. As well, the smoke detection system as a whole actuates faster in a fire situation than heat detectors, thereby making them safer. As a result, the Agent argued that their system fully conforms with the early warning system requirements in the OBC.

The Agent then noted that there are other minor issues to be resolved in the building such as the requirement under OBC 3.2.5.13. and its reference to NFPA 13 (specifically Article 4-13.7.1.) which mandates that the canopies be sprinklered and whether the combustible construction in the marquees is acceptable according to Article 3.1.5.22. He stated, however, that he felt these issues are contingent on the ruling of the sprinklering issue.

Lastly, the Agent itemized what he felt were other safety factors inherent in the building. For example, he noted that the building is to have full 24 hours supervision and that since there will be no kitchens in the resident suites the risk of fire has been dramatically reduced. He also indicated that the parking available at the building is quite limited. It was kept low by the municipality during site plan approval. The net result of this, however, is that there would be little chance that the building could be easily converted into a condominium catering to all ages due to the higher parking requirements.

In summation, the Agent noted that their sprinkler system is not deficient, it is different and superior. And that the subject building is not required to be sprinkled, but was done so above and beyond what is mandated by the OBC its fire safety requirements.

6. Respondent's Position

?The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the building was reviewed under Article 3.2.2.43. as a sprinklered structure. The Code, he noted, does not differentiate between voluntary and required sprinklers, it sets standards for installed sprinklers as is the present case. On this basis, he stated that the building has various deficiencies. Primary among these is the omission of waterflow detection devices and their annunciator connections that allow for zoned indication in accordance with OBC 3.2.4.16.(1) and 3.2.4.8.(2)(b) respectively. In addition, the marquees, which are combustible and project more than 1.2 m from the exposing building faces, have not been sprinklered in conformance with Sentence 3.2.5.13.(1) and NFPA 13.

In his view, the as-built early warning system does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Code. He argued that the combination of having both smoke alarms and smoke detectors in suites in lieu of smoke alarms and heat detectors is not what the Code intends. Since smoke detectors have different capacities than smoke alarms and heat detectors, their use in the present instance may not be appropriate. In fact, the Designate argued that by having a smoke sensitive device in suites that activates a general alarm in the building and alerts the fire department (unlike smoke alarms) the tendency to create what he called a "cry wolf" syndrome is high.

The Designate summarized his position by stating that if the building is to be considered as sprinklered, the sprinkler system must meet the OBC and NFPA. As a result, properly installed waterflow devices on each floor which are connected to an addressable annunciator panel are required, as is sprinkler coverage for the marquees.

For these reasons, the Respondent indicated that he felt that he did not have the authority to allow the disputed construction.

In conclusion, the Designate stated that he hoped the Commission could find some way to allow the sprinkler system to remain but yet meet Code.

7. Commission Ruling

It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed building, which does not provide protection on a floor areas with a barrier-free path of travel, which has a combustible canopy and which does not offer a separate heat detection system, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.3.1.7., Sentence 3.1.5.22.(2) and Clause 3.2.4.11.(2)(b) respectively of the Ontario Building Code on the condition that:

a. The as-installed smoke detectors are removed and replaced with multi sensor detectors; and,

b. The marquees are sprinklered according to NFPA 13.

8. Reasons

i. The building, as constructed, with a sprinkler system that does not contain waterflow detections per floor does offer an improvement in life safety in comparison to a building with no sprinkler protection.

ii. The building is fully sprinklered and this system can serve to compensate for the lack of protection on floor areas that have a barrier-free path of travel.

iii. The replacement of the smoke detectors with multi sensor detectors will improve the building's detection system and will provide not only a separate heat detection system, but will retain the extension of the smoke detection system into the resident suites undertaken by the Applicant.

iv. Zoned indication will be provided on the annunciator panel through this multi sensor detection system.

v. By fulfilling condition "b" above, the marquees will conform with OBC requirements.

vi. Staffing at the building will provide full supervision.

vii. There will be no kitchens in the residents suites.

viii. The parking at the site is well below what a general public condominium would require.

Dated at Toronto this 10th, day in the month of August in the year 2000 for application number 2000-45.

_______________________________________________

Dr. Kenneth Peaker, Chair

_______________________________________________

Mr. Michael Steele

_______________________________________________

Mr. Donald Pratt