Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-06-99 REPORT #2 ~'t THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: COUNCIL Date: JANUARY 25,1999 File # ;/0 ;. r; ~ R # i' (/'~) ~9"lc' es. ,_ :5 L- . Report No.: WD-06-99 By-Law # Subject: DELEGATION TO COUNCIL OF PETER FALCONER! JANUARY 11, 1999 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: I, THAT Report WD-06-99 be received for information; and 2, THAT Peter Falconeri be provided with a copy of this report and advised of Council's decision. REPORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No. I: Mr. Peter Falconeri's presentation to Council, January 11, 1999 No.2 Building Division's Interpretation: NFP A 96 Ventilation Requirements for Commercial Pizza and Baking Ovens 2.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 2, I In early summer of 1998, the Building Inspector for the Municipality attended the property formerly known as Hampton Gardens to investigate the construction and conversion of a unit from a vacant condition to a take-out pizza restaurant. He informed the owner by way of a Building Note that a Building Permit was required for the renovations and instructed the owner to come in to the Municipal Administration Centre for more information. 2.2 Shortly after the Inspector had visited the property, the building owner, Debbie Tafertshoffer, came in to inquire about the requirements for Building Permit. At that , . REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 PAGE 2 . time, staff from the Planning Department and the Building Department outlined the requirements and identified a number of issues that needed to be resolved before a Building Permit could be issued. 2.3 During the summer months, Mr. and Mrs. Falconeri, the tenants, came in on numerous occasions to try to resolve some of the issues with staff. During one of those discussions, Mr. Falconeri was informed by staff of the need to make changes to the construction (in progress without a Building Permit), including the requirement to install a specialized ventilation hood and fixed extinguishing system in accordance with the requirements of National Fire Protection Association Standard 96 (NFPA 96). 2.4 On August 14, 1998, Mrs. Fa1coneri made an application for Building Permit, complete with plans that conformed to the Ontario Building Code. Sometime after this date, after providing building designs that included a NFP A 96 hood and extinguishing system, Mr. Fa1coneri began to question the requirement for a specialized system, even citing other locations within the municipality where the hoods had not been installed. In an effort to confirm the 1997 (Revised) Ontario Building Code requirements, staff contacted the Buildings Branch of the Ministry of Housing for assistance in interpreting the requirements. (The Building Division had a number of other Building Permit applications at that same time, that also showed the need for the ventilation hood and extinguishing system, and the permit applicants also questioned the need.) The Buildings Branch advised that a complete ventilation system with a fixed fire extinguishing system was required. On August 19, 1998, Mrs. Tafertshoffer was informed that a Building Permit was available subject to approval from the Health Department. 2.5 On September 14, 1998, the Region of Durham Health Department issued a letter denying approval for the expansion of the unit due to concerns that the proposed use would exceed the capacity of the existing septic system. After finding out that the Health Department would not issue a Permit, Mr. Falconeri came to the Municipal Administration Centre demanding that we allow him to proceed with construction. Mr. Falconeri had been told by numerous staff, on numerous occasions, that this issue had to be resolved with the Health Department, but he persisted in making complaints to REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 PAGE 3 ~ Members of Council, staff and others, that the Municipality was being unfair. During this entire dialog, Mr. Falconeri did not request that the Municipality reconsider design requirements of the hood and extinguishing system. 2.6 On November 2,1998, the Building Permit was issued after outstanding issues with the Health Department had been resolved. The issuance of the Permit included a design provided by Mr. Falconeri's professional engineers, for a functional NFPA 96 hood and extinguishing system. 2.7 On December 14, 1998, the Building Inspector attended the property to conduct a review of the construction, and identified that a hood and extinguishing system had not been installed in accordance with the approved drawings issued for Building Permit. Since that time, the Building Inspector has withheld final approval and prohibited occupancy pending the installation of the ventilation system. 2.8 In the past couple of weeks, Mr. Falconeri has raised the same arguments that he raised in the fall in an effort to avoid installing the hood and extinguishing system and avoid complying with the Ontario Building Code and the approved drawings. 3.0 NFPA 96 AND ONTARIO BmLDING CODE REQmREMENTS 3.1 Building Codes are pre-emptive prescriptions for construction to ensure the health and safety of building occupants and for property protection. Fire Codes, on the other hand, are maintenance standards intended to maintain the level of safety provided in the construction, while recognizing that a condition may have pre-existed or may have been permitted when the building was constructed. Building Codes change over the years in attempts to increase the level of safety and property protection through known methods. Through the evolution of construction methods and techniques, the public (including the greatest driving force, the Insurance Industry) have expectations that the building will provide minimum levels of safety and property protection in response to hazards that may be present in the operation of the building. It is for this reason, staff believe, that the Ontario Building Code has increased the requirements over the years, for ventilation systems serving commercial cooking equipment. REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 PAGE 4 . 3.2 Since 1990 the Building Division has questioned the requirements to install specialized hoods and extinguishing system over commerci.al ovens. The 1990 Building Code indicated that a hood was required over "SOME" commercial cooking equipment but did not provide any specific exemptions. Discussions with the Buildings Branch of the Ministry of Housing over a number of years did not offer any help in resolving the interpretation issues. On many occasions, one Building Code Advisor contradicted the other. It was apparent that there was a lot of confusion to the applicability ofNFP A 96 Hoods and Fire Protection systems under the 1990 Ontario Building Code. In each application the Buildings Plans Examiner has had to examine and question the requirements of applying this standard. The most difficult of conditions concerned the application of baking versus pizza ovens. 3.3 The previous Chief Building Official had taken the position that a hood was required explicitly in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and NFP A 96 in all circumstances: Reviewing the files of many permits issued for similar installations, shows through their examination of the plans, that the Fire Department also required hoods to conform with NFP A 96. To be fair to the permit applicants, in recent years, the Building Division has agreed to review the requirements on a case by case basis, but the end result has been that a hood has been required in the majority of situations. 3.4 In July of 1998, the 1997 Ontario Building Code, came into force and effect. In this revision the article that identifies the need for a hood and extinguishing system was modified slightly to state that "ALL" commercial cooking equipment required a ventilation system designed and installed in conformance with NFP A 96 "Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations". Again, the Buildings Branch was contacted to confirm that the word "ALL" meant that every commercial appliance from boilers to microwaves required this type of ventilation system. The Code Advisor at the Ministry of Housing offered an interpretation summarized as follows: There is no question that the Building Code requires all commercial cooking equipment to be provided with an exhaust system conforming to NFP A 96. If, however, the products that are going to be cooked or baked in the ovens can be whally predicted and limited, REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 PAGE 5 . then it would seem reasonable to relieve the applicant from providing a hood. This might be the case if the baking was restricted to breads, rolls and like products. However, once the oven is installed it would be impossible to control what the ovens will be used for, and thus the Building Code must take the position of requiring a hood and extinguishing system for all situations. If the Chief Building Official is to waive, in part or in whole, the requirements in NFP A 96, then he must be sure that the list of products is limited. He could do this by requesting a list from the applicant, identifYing the specific goods to be produced, and then requiring that an agreement be made between the Municipality and the applicant. The enforcement of such an agreement would then become the responsibility of the Fire Department once the building is complete, On the basis of this discussion, the Building Division has taken the position that the designs for a ventilation and fire protection system must be included in the building plans submitted for Building Permit, unless the applicant can establish that limited products are being processed. Pizza ovens, however, do not, in the Branch's opinion or in the Building Division's interpretation, fall into this category of goods. The Building Division now has an interpretation that they will use for all future installations that is consistent with the Building Branch's interpretation. 3.5 While the Building Division is sympathetic of the expense of requesting that Mr. Falconeri install the hood, we cannot, in any legal sense offer him any relief. To our knowledge, Mr. Falconeri has not been able to convince the Buildings Branch of his position. An attempt to get the Fire service involved is, in our opinion, irrelevant, as Fire Departments operate under the Fire Code. Even though the Fire Code does offer some discretionary authority to the Fire Inspector, when reviewing existing conditions, this discretionary authority does not extend to over-ruling the requirements or interpretation of the Ontario Building Code. 3.6 As of January 6, 1999, the Building Division had received an alternate design for a ventilation system, prepared by Mr. Falconeri's profession engineer. This design is currently under review. To date, the submissions made by Mr. Falconeri's engineer have . REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 PAGE 6 been by facsimile and staff are cillTently awaiting a complete submission of drawings before authorizing the alternate design. 3.7 On January 8, 1999, Mr. Falconeri met with our Plans Examiner to discuss some new information that he had received. Included in the information was a formal interpretatio!1 ofNFPA 96, which said that certain ovens involved in processes that produced no grease- laden vapours could be exempted from providing fITe-extinguishing equipment. However, in reviewing the information it became clear that the interpretation originated in 1978 based on the 1976 issue ofNFPA 96. Given that the interpretation was based on a document 23 years old, we could not rely on the assumption that it applied to the CillTent NFP A 96, 1994 Edition. Mr. Falconeri was informed that ifhe could have the interpretation re-issued based on the 1994 Edition, that the Building Division would review our interpretation. Mr. Falconeri stated that this would not be possible since the interpretation was issued "long ago" in a newsletter issued by the National Fire Protection Association. It should be noted that during this meeting, Mr. Falconeri offered that the ovens in question will be used for the cooking / re-heating of chicken wings, in addition to pizza and other possible food items. Although this information had not been offered to the Building Division until now, it enforces the Building Branch's concerns about not being able to limit what is cooked in the ovens once the Building Permit has been fInalized. Other information that he provided shows that in the Appendix A-8-3.lofNFPA 96, it is clear that it is intended that pizza ovens be provided with hoods (annual inspection and cleaning required). 3.8 As this is an Ontario Building Code issue, Mr. Falconeri has one option that he was informed of in the early stages of our discussions. He could apply to the Building Code Commission for an interpretation and determination of sufficiency of compliance as provided in the Building Code Act. We are told that the Building Code Advisors at the Buildings Branch gave him this same advice. In our meeting ofJanuary 8, 1999, Mr. Falconeri stated that he would be seeking an interpretation and formal hearing of the Building Code Commission and it was his . REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 PAGE 7 intention to apply during the week ofJanuary 11 - 15, 1999. We would encourage and welcome Mr. Falconeri to apply to the Building Code Commission for a hearing. Once the Commission makes a decision, the interpretation in this situation will be very clear. 4.0 MR. FALCONERI'S COMMENTS AND ISSUES 4.1 In his presentation to Council, Mr. Falconeri's raises a number of issues that need to be clarified. In many examples provided to Council, Mr. Falconeri cites various locations where systems have been installed, partially installed or not installed in accordance with NFP A 96. Prior to the 1990 Ontario Building Code, there were no specific requirements for the installation ofNFPA 96 ventilation systems. The Building Code simply provided that where such systems were provided, then they should conform to the requirements of NFP A 96. In the 1990 Ontario Building Code, the requirements became more restrictive by requiring NFP A 96 ventilation systems on "SOME" appliances but not specifically exempting any individual appliance. The 1997 Ontario Building Code clearly defines that specialized ventilation and fire suppression systems are required for "ALL" commercial cooking equipment. Staffs experience and attention to the requirements has also evolved with each revision to the Building Code. In reviewing the list provided by Mr. Falconeri, staff are satisfied that each installation reasonably conformed to the requirements, at the time that the equipment was installed. Where Inspection Records are readily available, there does not appear to be any concern with the installations of the commercial cooking equipment or the ventilation systems during the construction of the building. Appropriate action has been taken where there was a belief that the Permit Drawings intended full compliance with NFP A 96 requirements and the installation was not completed. Through examination of the list provided, it appears that, in some instances, some of the equipment may have been removed or relocated within the building. However, the Fire Department, through their regular inspections of the premises, appears to be satisfied that the installations maintain the level of safety prescribed by the Fire Code. Any corrective measures that may be required in any of the examples, are assigned as a Fire Department responsibility to follow up. . REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 PAGES 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 After considerable research into the subject of ventilation and fire protection equipment for commercial ovens, it is the opinion of the Building Division that hoods and extinguishing systems need to be provided. 5.2 Since it is clear that Mr. Falconeri has not met the criteria ofthe Building Division's interpretation, we are not in a position to vary or over-rule the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. We must request that he conform with the approved plans issued for permit or provide an alternate design that satisfies the same criteria. 5.3 Since Mr. Falconeri disagrees with our position, he has the option of requesting a hearing with the Building Code Commission for a final determination of the technical requirements of the Ontario Building Code and NFPA 96. We should encourage him to seek this resolve. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, ~V~ Stephen1\:. Vokes, P. Eng., Director of Public Works d r~--~'LL Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer GP*SA V*ce 18/01/99 Pc: Peter Falconeri 251 Townline Road North Courtice, ON LIE 213 Municipality of Clarington Building Department Town Hall 40 Temperance St. Bowmanville, Ontario Peter Falconeri 251 Townline Rd. N. Courtice, Ontario LIE-2J3 Madam Mayor and Members of Council, The members of this community shou'd be cautious for their lives and well being when entering a eating establishment. This is a bold statement to make and I will try to convince this council that somethin 0 should be done to regulate some type of conformity in the eating establishments of this Municipality and maintain secure steps from loss of life and personal property by ensuring that proper fire prevention regulations are enforced. A few months ago I had an idea to open up a pizza place in Hampton. Since I never operated a pizza place before I needed to know some of the equipment I would need. In order to determine this I went around to all of the pizza places within our Municipality. I made notes and a list of things I saw that would make my business like theirs. The list was general. Ovens, prep tables, coolers, etc. When I submitted my plans to the Building Dept. they indicated that the O.B.C. in section 6.2.2.6. warranted a Canopy, Ventilation System and Suppression System over my pizza ovens. I was in shock and here's why. I expressed my concerns that the other Pizza Places within the Municipality did not have these systems installed. I indicated to them that some of these eating establishments had none of these systems and some had part. Why do I have to put in all three. They indicated to me that after they sign off on a project it is up to the Fire Prevention Office of the Fire Dept. to enforce and inspect these establishments and determine if there is a need for these systems. I mentioned east Side Mario's in Bowmanville. Here was a eating establishment that had just opened and had none of these systems. Again, why should I have to install these systems when a business that has just opened 16 months ago doesn't have to install them. You are making me install these systems but yet East Side Mario's doesn't? East Side Mario's is open for business! The Building Dept. passed them. The Fire Dept. passed them. Didn't they have to fall to 6.2.2.6. of the O.B.C.? How did they get approval? Why did the Municipal Building Inspector let them pass and not me at my building inspection? The Ontario Building Code section 6.2.2.6. refers to a American Document called the NFPA 96 Standard. This standard deals with the installation of Hoods, Ventilation Systems, and Suppression Systems over All commercial cooking equipment producing grease laden vapors. The Ontario Fire Code also refers to this Standard in section 2.6.1.12.(1). ATTACHMENT NO.: 1 REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 .. Your Municipality is enforcing the requirement of these systems in a new construction of a eating establishment under 6.2.2.6 of the O.B.C., East Side Mario's being a new construction did not require them. Any eating establishments that have existed prior to these codes are the responsibility of the Fire Prevention Dept. I understand the N.F.P.A. 96 Standard has been around a very long time. Before most of the eating establishments in question. By making me install these systems and others not you are telling me that you are putting patrons at a great risk if they choose to eat at a establishment that does not house these systems. If it is such a preventative step to ensure safety in case of fire in my business then one must assume it would apply to all? You want my new place to be safe from fire but the others not? For the older establishments maybe the Building Dept. of that time either didn't enforce NFP A 96 or the Fire Prevention Office never ensured there prevention. The O.B.C. refers to the N.F.P.A. 96 Standard in new construction of eating establishments and the Fire Prevention Office has to enforce that Standard after the business is operating. This is not being done here in this Municipality of Clarington. I clearly received the impression that these systems were not needed in my business because numerous other eating establishments in this same Municipality never had them installed. Where is the Fire Prevention Office in all this? How did I get the impression that these systems were not needed in my business? I will tell you how. By example. By looking at the others in my community. IfI am putting myself, my employees, and my patrons at risk by not having these systems in place then are not these other eating establishments putting their lives, employees and patrons at risk? Why isn't the Fire Prevention Office going around and ensuring the safety of patrons? Are you saying that if a fire breaks out in one ofthese establishments and people die, that the Fire Prevention Office is clear from responsibility? Or better yet, the Municipality is clear? East Side Mario's has to hold more than 100 people. Yet, they have a oven just like mine with none of these systems in place. Are you not saying to me that all the patrons that eat in East Side Mario's on any given day are not at risk to a life threatening fire because their ovens are not systemized? East Side Mario's makes a lot of Pizza. Those ovens are pumping out dough. Some of the other eating establishments within our Municipality also do not have these systems. When I questioned them to your Building Dept. they informed me that they had never issued any building permits to these establishments. Nothing was on file. Here we have eating establishments in operation with no inspections, permits and fire prevention in place. Because they just appeared from thin air and nobody complained to their existence they continue to operate. Why hasn't the fire Prevention Office approached these places? Why aren't questions being asked as to how these eating establishments appear? I would like to know what you are going to do about this. Do you not think that the community needs to know what eating establishments are safe and which ones are not? Do the members of the community have to take unnecessary chances when choosing a place to eat? It doesn't seem fair. In Bill 84 of the Ontario Fire Code, Part VI, Section 21, Sentence I, it states the following: 21. (1) An inspector who has carried out an inspection of land or premises under section 19 or 20 may order the owner or occupant of the land or premises to take any measure necessary to ensure fire safety on the land and premises and may for that purpose order the occupant, (a) to remove buildings or structures from the land or premises; (b) to make structural and other repairs or alterations, including material alterations, to the buildings or structures; (c) to remove combustible or explosive material or any thing that may constitute a fire hazard; (d) to install and use specified equipment or devices as may be necessary to contain hazardous material on the land or premises and, in the event of a fire, to remove or transport the material; (e) to discontinue the manufacturing, production or fabrication of any material, device or other thing that creates or poses a undue risk of fire or explosion; (f) to do any thing respecting fire safety including anything relating to the containment of a possible fire, means of egress, fire alarms and detection, fire suppression and the preparation of a fire safety plan; (g) to remedy any contravention of the fire code. Why hasn't the Fire Prevention Office visited these eating establishments. Here is a list of some known eating establishments in our Municipality. Some have these systems and others do not. Some have part or none of the systems. Some are known to the Municipality by Permits and others are not? Do you not find this unconformity to be in contradiction to what I seem to have to go through? It seems that I am not getting clear answers from any officials that I talk to. A new Pizza Place opened in Oshawa with only 2 of the necessary 3 systems. The one system missing was Suppression. Not having to install that system saved the owner I would say $3,000.00. These systems are not cheap. I called Oshawa Building Dept to find out why Oshawa can administer the O.B.C. differently than Clarington. They indicated to me that the way they do it is all Permits referring to O.B.C. 62.2.6. and the N.F.PA 96 Standard, go to their Fire Prevention Office. They would comment on the plans and make recommendations for N.F.P.A. 96 and refer them back to the Building Dept. The Fire Prevention Office of Os haw a was only executing 2 of the 3 systems required where Clarington was executing all 3. Oshawa's team of 8 Fire Prevention Officers read the N.F.P.A. 96 and concluded that the Suppression System was not required for ovens like mine and East Side Mario's. Keep in mind that East Side Mario's has none of the 3, and I am expected all of the 3. What is the answer? What do you need? I call the Clarington Fire Prevention Office and inquired how many Fire Prevention Officials resided on their team and I was told One. One fire Prevention officer for the whole Municipality ofClarington. Can we assume that this one Fire Prevention Officer is so overworked that he cannot find the time or the resources to ensure Fire Prevention in our Communities? I cannot see how one Fire Prevention Officer can cover our growing Municipality. New businesses are coming our way and eating establishments and other businesses falling under Fire Prevention concerns will overload one Fire Prevention Official. Has the Municipality of Cia ring ton overlooked Fire Prevention in our older non-conforming businesses and that these concerns should be dealt with. I see no conformity. Every place is different. No wonder when I scouted all the other pizza places in the area I determined my ovens were installed acceptable. Now I know what's out there. What's out there is a mess. And because of that mess I have this mess to contend to. The only thing that's stopping me from opening up is this issue. Why should I have to spend unnecessary start-up money in equipment that might not be required where others never have and have not been told to do so? I am aware of the Formal Interpretation that your Building Dept. has written with regards to this matter and there still seems to be a controversy. Why wasn't that Interpretation executed for east Side Mario's? Why wasn't the Fire Prevention Office notified of it? They never mentioned it to me. Why is it appearing now and not at the beginning of my dispute 3 months ago? I have been at this issue for the last 3-4 months. Never had I seen this Formal Interpretation but only just recently has it appeared. It makes it suspicious. My process with regards to this whole matter has made me feel like I am being played with. What is this Council prepared to do with regards to this issue? Will you allow me to open the way my ovens are so I can begin my business just like East Side Mario's has begun their business over 16 months ago? And all the other places whose ovens are the same configuration? Since your Building Dept. is enforcing this precaution and East Side Mario's is not complying are you prepared to instruct your Fire Prevention Officer to close down East Side Mario's Pizza Oven until they comply? This will mean they will not be able to sell pizza. They will argue that they passed all their inspections and why should they have to install these systems? What are you going to do? . I cannot believe that all these other business that do not comply are open for business and here I am replicating what I see in the Municipality and I am subjected to all these rules and regulations. Where is the justice in that? I am just trying to open up a little 650 sq. ft. pizza place that will not even house any patrons for more than a few minutes at a time. I have taken careful consideration in making my unit a contained fire separation with all the necessary precautions. Fire extinguishers, Alarm, Fire Flaps, Fire Dampers, Fire Rated drywall.... .everything. These places that have been open for years and years without these systems, have you heard of any burning down in Bowmanville lately? No... .Hmmm.., maybe they do not require them? They have been in operation without them and nothing has happened? What then is the standard? How is it applied in this Municipality? What is this Council prepared to reply to me and to the community with regards to my and the Municipalities issues? List of Establishments: Conforming and Non-Conforming in The Municipality of Clarington Olivers Pizza- King St. E. Courtice 4 gas ovens with no suppression systems and no canopy over them no grease-traps under sinks In operation 5 years Double Double Pizza + Wings - King St E Courtice Plaza Deep fryers with hood and suppression Gas conveyor oven with hood and suppression Grease-trap In operation 5 years East Side Marios Cinema Complex King St E Bowmanville No canopy over pizza ovens No suppression system over pizza ovens In operation 14 months Your Choice Pizza - Waverly Center Plaza Waverly St Bowmanville No canopy over pizza ovens No suppression system over pizza ovens No grease-traps In operation 1 '12 years Used to be subshop before 241 Pizza - 9 King St E Bowmanville Canopy Suppression system No grease-traps Wagon Pizza - Across from Castle Hotel Bowmanville No suppression system over pizza ovens Canopy over pizza ovens No Grease-traps In operation 4 years Pizza Pizza - King St E Bowmanville Canopy Grease-trap No suppression System over pizza ovens In operation 6 years Opened 1992 Dennis Pizza - King St East Bowmanville No canopy over pizza ovens No suppression system over pizza ovens Grease-trap under dishwasher only 1+1 Pizza + Wings King St East Bowmanville Canopy over pizza oven No suppression system over pizza ovens Grease-trap In operation 4 years Square Boys Pizza Church St Bowmanville No Canopy over pizza ovens No suppression system over pizza ovens No grease-trap 241 Pizza - King St East Courtice Canopy over pizza ovens No Suppression over pizza ovens No grease-trap . ONTARIO BUILDING CODE 1997 December 3, 1998 Interpretation: NFPA 96 Ventilation Requirements for Commercial Pizza and Baking Ovens OBC states: 6.2.2.6. Commercial Cooking Equipment (1) All commercial cooking equipment shall be provided with ventilation systems designed, constructed and installed to conform to NFPA 96, "Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations", except as required by Sentence 3.6.3.1.(1) and Article 3.6.4.2. (See A-3.3.1.2.(2) in Appendix A.) NFPA 96 states: 1-3 General Reqnirements 1-3.1 Cooking equipment used in processes producing smoke or grease laden vapors shall be equipped with an exhaust system complying with the following: (a) A hood complying with the requirements of Chapter 2, and (b) Grease removal devices complying with the requirements of Chapter 3, and (c) A duct system complying with the requirements of Chapter 4, and (d) Fire extinguishing equipment complying with the requirements of Chapter 7. The question arose as to whether or not typical pizza and bakery ovens needed to be provided with a hood and extinguishing system as described above. Upon examination of the relevant articles it would appear clear that all cooking produces varying amounts of smoke and grease-laden vapours, depending on the types of products being cooked. In the cases of breads and buns there would not appear to be sufficient grease or smoke that would constitute a hazard. On the other hand, products such as pizza and pastries would produce greater amounts of smoke or grease-laden vapour as part of the cooking process. I n order to determine if there was a point at which the hoods and extinguishing systems would not be required, the Buildings Branch was contacted and they offered an opinion. The following synopsis summarizes the discussions: There is no question that the Building Code requires all commercial cooking equipment to be provided with an exhaust system conforming to NFPA 96. If, however, the products that are going to be cooked or baked in the ovens can be wholly predicted and limited, then it would seem reasonable to relieve the applicant from providing a hood. This might be the case if the baking was restricted to breads, rolls and like products. However, once the oven is installed it would be impossible to control what the ovens will be used for, and thus the Building Code must take the ATTACHMENT NO.: 2 REPORT NO.: WD-06-99 .' . ONTARIO BUILDING CODE 1997 December 3, 1998 position of requiring a hood and extinguishing for all situations. If the Chief Building Official is to waive, in part or in whole, the requirements in NFPA 96, then he must be sure that the list of products is limited. He could do this by requesting a list from the applicant, identifying the specific the goods to be produced, and then requiring that an agreement be made between the Municipality and the applicant. The enforcement of such an agreement would then become the responsibility of the Fire Department once the building is complete. It is the position of the Municipality of Clarington that an exhaust system, consisting of a hood, grease-removal devices, duct system and fire extinguishing system shall be provided for all ovens, including baking and pizza ovens. If, in the opinion of the Chief Building Official or his designate: (a) the baking process produces limited hazard, and (b) a list has been submitted that identifies and limits the products to breads, rolls, and like products, and (c) an agreement is made between the Municipality of Clarington and the applicant that no other products will be produced, then the Municipality of Clarington will waive the requirements for a ventilation system designed in accordance with NFPA 96. However, a ventilation system designed in accordance with ASHRAE 62 would still be required. It should be noted that the baking of pizza is not considered a limited hazard product.