Photo by Whitehorse Star
NO OCCUPANCY – The territory's fire marshal issued an appeal order last Thursday stating, 'There shall be no residential occupancy within this building.' Former residents of the Jamieson's Building on Fourth Avenue were recently forced to vacate the apartments with little notice.
Former residents of the Jamieson’s Building on Fourth Avenue will remain just that for the time being – former residents.
Former residents of the Jamieson’s Building on Fourth Avenue will remain just that for the time being – former residents.
The territory’s fire marshal issued an appeal order last Thursday stating, “There shall be no residential occupancy within this building.”
The building’s owners had appealed, with the fire marshal’s office, the January decision of the Whitehorse Fire Department which forced residents to vacate their apartments with little notice.
The next step for the building’s owners would be the Yukon Supreme Court if they wish to appeal the fire marshal’s order.
Paperwork with the court would be required to be filed within seven days of last Thursday’s appeal order, it was noted in the four-page document signed by fire marshal Kevin Taylor.
In his report, Taylor highlighted a number of issues with the building.
There are 14 separate apartments on the second floor along with retail space on the ground floor.
Taylor pointed out:
• there is not the required fire alarm system that would alert residents and the local fire department of a fire in the building;
• most windows in the units don’t meet requirements to allow a secondary means of escape in the case of a blaze;
• fire separations haven’t been maintained in a way that would prevent heat and smoke escaping to other parts of the building and aren’t in conformance with the National Fire Code; and
• required continuity between fire separations where they abut (such as a floor and exterior wall) have not been maintained as required.
The order then goes on to note that for residential tenants to be back in the building, a fire separation must be maintained between the first and second floors.
Furthermore, it must meet the requirements of the National Fire Code (which includes requirements of the National Building Code).
Also required are:
• a fire alarm system meeting requirements of the fire code must be installed with a system that notifies both tenants and the local fire department of a fire;
• fire escape plans must be posted in visible areas in case of an emergency as required under the Fire Prevention Act; and
• there must be two means of escape for each apartment in order to allow for a safe exit in case of an emergency.
The owners of the building could not be reached for comment this morning.
Department of Health and Social Services officials said in an earlier interview they’re helping tenants who were on social assistance to relocate.
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (7)
Up 20 Down 0
Lost in the Yukon on Feb 7, 2016 at 8:26 pm
Dearest Goucho ... couldn't agree with you more. It is about accountability and there had been numerous warnings. This begs the question why didn't the Director of Social Services know? And if they did know why did they fail in insisting that the folks they were paying for be moved out and found other places. I suspect two reasons ... the first is because it was probably cheaper than having them in safe housing (that alone tells you something) ... and secondly because the poor represents a constituency that they know probably won't vote.
Up 17 Down 0
Groucho d'North on Feb 5, 2016 at 5:09 pm
Lost,
I knew some were SA clients, which should underline the importance of Social Services being involved with the continued well-being of their client responsibilities. But we are at the will of the reporter’s level of detail as to who did what, where and when, and so much that is not widely known. Like how many warnings were made to the landlord from the City and was this information provided to the department? Were alternative lodgings being sought and other questions that speak to the diligence being or not being done? I believe anytime is appropriate for government departments to be accountable to the public they are supposed to be serving, but too many of these turn into witch hunts and political bun fights to have any real lasting value. Being an election year, it's time the marching orders and public expectations should be refreshed for whoever forms the next government.
Up 42 Down 1
Lost in the Yukon on Feb 5, 2016 at 3:33 pm
Dearest Groucho ... in regards to better coordination with social services. You need to remember that at least 7 of the people living in these unsafe slum conditions were put there by the Director of Social Services who is responsible for Social Assistance. They (Director of Social Assistance) have authorized the payment of at least $6,000.00 a month to this landlord. It makes one wonder and ponder a whole series of questions. Questions worthy of an inquiry into the practices of Social Services.
Up 61 Down 3
Curious Yukoner on Feb 4, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Would the negative commenters rather wait until there was a fire in the building (God forbid), and we read about injuries or deaths...... if I'm not mistaken the landlord of this building is the very same one who owned the building in Porter Creek in which an entire family died not long ago.. because of an old and faulty heating system. Thanks to that event regulations have been put in place in an attempt to prevent a repeat occurrence.
Lets not wait for a fire in the Jamieson building before taking action.......I applaud what the Fire Marshall has done!
Up 13 Down 40
Just Say'in on Feb 3, 2016 at 8:48 pm
And this is why there will never be enough affordable housing. Another fourteen units gone.
Up 12 Down 32
Max Mack on Feb 3, 2016 at 5:23 pm
Which Fire Code(s) applies? Has the concept of grandfathering gone by the wayside, on the basis of arbitrary rule changes imposed by the Fire Marshall? On its surface, it appears that the Fire Marshall is trying to retroactively impose code changes?
Incredibly, you have to go to the Supreme Court if you want to challenge the Fire Marshall?
Up 17 Down 11
Groucho d'North on Feb 3, 2016 at 4:59 pm
I suppose it’s just a coincidence that all these apartment inspections are being conducted shortly after the new Landlord and Tenant Act came into force. Don’t get me wrong, enforcing better building safety is a very good project, and long overdue, but it's the tenants who suffer the brunt of it. Some coordination with other social service providers could have produced a better result for all involved. More big picture thinking is needed and less hardball.