BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BUILDING CODE COMMISSION"

Aubrie Snow
6 years ago
Views:

Ruling No. 05-13-1027 Application No. 2005-05 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentences 3.1.3.2.(2) and 3.

1 Ruling No Application No BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentences (2) and (4) of Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Avi Gottlieb, Avcon Construction Inc. for resolution of a dispute with Jim Laughlin, Deputy Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposed public use self-storage facility, having a Group F, Division 2, medium hazard industrial occupancy can be located in the basement level of a building currently designated for Group C, residential occupancy and Group E, retail purposes, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (2) and (4) of the Building Code at 427 Parliament Street, Toronto, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Avi Gottlieb Avcon Construction Inc. Toronto, Ontario Jim Laughlin Deputy Chief Building Official City of Toronto Tony Chow, Chair Fred Barkhouse Rick Florio Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING April 7, 2005 DATE OF RULING April 14, 2005 APPEARANCES Leszek Muniak Larden Muniak Consulting Inc. Agent for the Applicant Prabhakar Mahant Manager, Plan Review City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent

2 - 2 - RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, and proposes to use the basement level of an existing mixed-use building as a self-storage facility at 427 Parliament Street, City of Toronto, Ontario. The subject building is two storeys in building height with a basement level and has a building area of 1,003 m 2. Both combustible and non-combustible materials have been used in the construction of the building. The ground floor and the basement level are fully sprinklered. Only the east portion of the second floor is sprinklered and the structure is equipped with a fire alarm system but not a standpipe and hose system. The building is a mixed-use building containing a Group C residential occupancy on the second floor and Group E mercantile occupancy on the ground floor. The floor assemblies between the ground floor and the second floor provide a 2 h fire-resistance rating. The floor assemblies between the basement and the ground floor provide a 1 h fire-resistance rating. It is proposed that the basement level of the building be used as a public self-storage facility. This use would result in a Group F, Division 2 medium hazard industrial occupancy for the basement level. Floor assemblies between the basement level and the ground floor are constructed using concrete floor on a metal deck. Steel beams, joists and a metal floor deck have a 1 h rated spray fireproofing. All columns, which support the structures above, are 2 h fire rated. The construction in dispute involves the resulting combination of occupancies. In particular, the combination of a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy and a Group C, residential major occupancy within the same building. In this regard, the issue in dispute involves the whether the proposed public self-storage facility located in the basement of the existing mixed-use building provides sufficiency of compliance with the provisions outlined in Sentences (2) and (4) of the Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Prohibition of Occupancy Combinations (2) Except as provided in Sentence (4) and Sentence (9), not more than one suite of residential occupancy shall be contained within a building classified as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy. (4) A Group F, Division 2 major occupancy is permitted in a building containing only live/work units and is for the exclusive use of the occupants of the live/work units. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the building is a two-storey building with a basement. The structure faces one street for fire fighting access. The ground floor has a floor area of approximately 1000 m 2 and is used for retail purposes. The second floor, has a floor area of approximately 800 m 2, and is used for residential purposes. It is proposed that the basement level of the building be used as a self-storage facility for persons in the neighbourhood. The rental and use of the proposed storage units would be available to the general public and would not be confined to the use of the tenants in the building.

3 - 3 - The Agent outlined some key elements as assurance that the level of safety in the building is adequate to ensure the safety of the occupants. He noted that the building will be equipped with a sprinkler system as well as a fire alarm and smoke detection system and fire separations are provided between the occupancies. He also informed the Commission that, in his opinion, the travel distance of 45 m would allow adequate time for person to evacuate the basement floor area. Additionally, he pointed out that the entrance to the basement level would be from Parliament Street and would be separate from the entrance for the residential occupancy. It is his belief that, based on the existing conditions, an adequate protection against fire spread from occupancy to occupancy is achieved. The Agent further submitted that the basement had previously been used as a storage area for the retail occupancy located on the ground floor. The building changed ownership in 2000 and the new owner now wishes to convert the basement level to a self-storage facility as the retail occupancy located on the ground floor no longer uses the basement for storage. The Agent stated that the Building Code appears to disallow the inclusion of a Group F, Division 2 self-storage facility because of the existing Group C occupancy. Sentence (2) of the Code restricts buildings classified as F2 major occupancy to having not more than one suite of residential occupancy, except as provided by Sentence (4). Sentence (4) of the Code refers to conditions under which more than one suite of residential occupancy may be contained within a building having a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy. This Sentence permits a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy in a building containing only live/work units and is for the exclusive use of the occupants of those live/work units. The Agent indicated that in discussing the issue with National Building Code staff as to why these references were included in the Code, the reason given was that at one time factories had truck deliveries and the truck drivers wanted a place to rest, therefore one unit of residential occupancy was allowed. This provision has been in the National Building Code since He further indicated that the Ontario Building Code was amended to permit the use of residential spaces for business purposes. It is the Agent s opinion that both of these Sentences were included in the Code for specific purposes. He went on to suggest that the Building Code does not prohibit an F2 occupancy in a building from containing a Group C occupancy. He cited a dry cleaning establishment as an example. It was the opinion of the Agent that the Code is being applied to this specific situation in a way that it was not intended. The Agent was questioned as to how it was determined whether the proposed self-storage facility should be classified as a Group F, Division 2 or Group F, Division 1 occupancy. He explained that the Code refers to self-storage facilities as an F2 classification. He stated that an F1 classification includes the storage of highly flammable or explosive contents. Self-service storage buildings are listed in A (1) of the Code as an example of the type of use that might be considered a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy. Upon being questioned as to how the material being stored within the facility could be controlled, the Agent advised that the facility would be monitored by video cameras and contracts would be entered into with the users of the facility in order to stipulate the restrictions on allowable materials to be stored. He further advised that there would be on-site supervision during business hours. The Agent also stated that emergency lighting would be provided. In response to being questioned as to whether the fire alarm and the sprinkler systems are required, the Agent stated that the fire alarm system is a requirement and the sprinklering is required in the basement and the retail floor as they are over 6,000 m 2. The Agent went on to say that smoke detectors could also be installed as a compensating measure. The detectors would offer early warning in the event of a fire and would not be required by the Building Code.

4 - 4 - The Agent summarized his position by stating that the building in question is a multiple use building, having a residential occupancy on the top floor, a mercantile occupancy on the ground level and a proposed medium hazard industrial occupancy in the basement. In his opinion the Code does not prohibit the combination of residential and medium hazard industrial occupancies in the same building. He also referenced the Applicant s willingness to install smoke detection devices in the basement of the building as a compensating measure. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the proposed use of the existing basement as a medium hazard industrial occupancy when combined with the existing residential occupancy, results in noncompliance with the Building Code. He further submitted that building permits were issued for the ground floor retail occupancy and the second floor residential occupancy. The permits do not refer to any occupancy in the basement portion of the building. The Respondent is of the opinion that the Municipality has not been provided with sufficient information to determine the proper classification of the proposed self-storage use in the basement. In the Respondent s view, there has been no determination of the hazardous content that may be stored within the proposed facility and this is why the Municipality is questioning the occupancy classification. The Respondent stated that Part 11 of the Building Code does not provide any relief from having to comply with Article of the Code. He went on to say that Sentence (1) of the Code prohibits a Group F, Division 1 major occupancy in a building containing Group A, B or C occupancies. The Respondent submitted that he would like to have some confirmation that the proposed facility would not contain an F1 occupancy and claimed that he had not received any information which would provide him with a level of comfort in this regard. The Respondent referenced Sentences (2) and (4) of the Code and argued that these exceptions do not apply to the facility in question. He maintained that Sentence (2) allows for not more than one suite of residential occupancy to be contained within a building classified as having a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy. Since this facility has more than one suite of residential occupancy, this exception does not apply to this facility. He further maintained that Sentence (4) does not apply to the facility either, as the F2 use is not for the exclusive use of the occupants of the building. It was his opinion that a building could not contain a Group C occupancy and a public self-storage facility. The Respondent also voiced a concern as to whether Section should apply to the selfstorage use in the basement. Section of the Building Code outlines specific requirements for self-service storage buildings. It would appear that since the entire building is not a selfstorage facility that the requirements of that Section would not apply. He explained that he felt the self-storage industry is more regulated than the self-storage use would be in this facility. In summation, the Respondent reiterated that it is his belief that the Code restricts an F2 use within a building containing a Group C occupancy to being for the exclusive use of the residents of the building. This is not the case with this building. The residents living in the residential portion of the building would not have any control over what is being stored in the basement of their building.

5 Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed public self-storage facility, Group F, Division 2, medium hazard industrial major occupancy located in the basement level of a building currently designated as Group C, residential major occupancy on the second storey and Group E, retail major occupancy on the first storey, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (2) and (4) of the Building Code at 427 Parliament Street, Toronto, Ontario, on condition that: a) The floor assembly between the proposed Group F, Division 2 occupancy and the existing Group E occupancy shall be upgraded to provide a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours. b) All stairwell enclosures shall provide a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours. c) Smoke detection devices, connected to the fire alarm system, shall be installed in each suite or portion of the proposed Group F, Division 2 occupancy, such that all areas will be covered. d) A single stage fire alarm system shall be installed throughout the building. The system shall be designed to notify the fire department that an alarm signal has been initiated. e) On site supervision by an employee of the self-storage facility shall be provided and public access to the storage facility shall be restricted to those hours during which on site supervision is provided. f) Material permitted to be stored within the facility will be restricted to medium hazard industrial content. Contracts shall be entered into between patrons of the facility and the self-storage management, informing the patrons of the restriction on permitted storage items and identifying items, which are not permitted (i.e. high hazard industrial material). 6. Reasons i) The proposed Group F, Division 2 medium hazard industrial occupancy is to be located in the basement of the subject building while the Group C residential occupancy is located on the second storey. The Group E mercantile occupancy, located on the first storey, separates the uses. ii) iii) iv) The basement, first storey and a portion of the second storey of the subject building are equipped with a sprinkler system. The proposed storage facility will be monitored by video cameras. The subject building is only two storeys in building height. v) The Commission is satisfied that, subject to the implementation of the conditions noted above, the subject proposal will achieve sufficiency of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code.

6 - 6 - Dated at Toronto this 14 th day in the month of April in the year 2005 for application number Tony Chow, Chair Fred Barkhouse Rick Florio

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Ruling No. 08-04-1178 Application No. B-2007-47 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 3.2.9.2.(1)