Sponsor Testimony on HB 65 — Sarah Fowler Arthur, State Representative, 99th House District
Summary
Sponsor testimony on HB 65 from Sarah Fowler Arthur, State Representative for the 99th House District, to Chairman Johnson, Vice-Chair Manchester, Ranking Member McNally and members of the committee. The testimony says HB 65 observes the same interpretation of outdoor patio spaces that was generally accepted by the state during Covid-19 closures, namely that being outdoors does not count towards the indoor capacity rating of a facility. It says the bill would codify patios as non-building facilities for the purposes of fire code, and describes the effect on local wineries and tourism. It urges support of HB65.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Sponsor Testimony on HB 65 — Sarah Fowler Arthur, State Representative, 99th House District.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2023-03-28-commerce-labor-testimony-sponsor-testimony-hb-65-fa-3a519fdbf8/
, SHA-256 ee98465d057ef994167b402a73b6425175f0ca719e726bfa1d6adf1e220c8416.Full text
Committees
99th House District
Ashtabula County
Aviation and Aerospace
Columbus Office Behavioral Health
Vern Riffe Center Families and Aging
77 S. High Street Primary and Secondary Education
12th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-6111
(614) 466-1405
(800) 282-0253
(614) 719-0000 (Fax)
Rep99@ohiohouse.gov
Sarah Fowler Arthur
www.ohiohouse.gov State Representative
Chairman Johnson, Vice-Chair Manchester, Ranking Member McNally, and members of the
committee,
HB 65 observes the same interpretation of outdoor patio spaces that was generally accepted by
the state during Covid-19 closures… namely that being outdoors doesn’t count towards the
indoor capacity rating of a facility.
This interpretation enabled many small wineries and businesses to continue to operate in a safe
and healthy manner during a challenging period of time. It is common sense to continue this
interpretation when it comes to state fire codes for facilities with outdoor patios with three sides
of safe egress.
Last summer, my husband and I joined some friends at a local winery. There was an open yard at
the back of the facility with a local band playing and many people stayed to enjoy the sun and
music. We happened to be in a jurisdiction where the guests in the patio and yard didn’t count
toward the total capacity of the facility.
If we had been just five miles down the road, however, this same gathering would have been
considered subject to the total capacity of the building’s fire codes. This restrictive interpretation
severely limits the number of guests who can safely enjoy our local wineries, harming our local
businesses and tourism.
I urge your support of HB65 to codify patios as non-building facilities for the purposes of fire
code. Thank you.
Sarah Fowler Arthur
File and source
- File
- 2023-03-28_commerce-labor_testimony_sponsor-testimony-hb-65-fa.pdf
- Size
- 335,914 bytes
- SHA-256
- ee98465d057ef994167b402a73b6425175f0ca719e726bfa1d6adf1e220c8416
- Original
- No public link identified.