BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

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 Sentence (5) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Shaune Lawton, Sunbeam Residential Development Centre, for the resolution of a dispute with Jim Witmer, Chief Building Official, City of Kitchener, to determine whether 24 hour per day staffing at the subject group home offered in lieu of automatic door openers provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (5) of the Ontario Building Code at 3 Janet Court, Kitchener, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Shaune Lawton Sunbeam Residential Development Centre Kitchener, Ontario Jim Witmer Chief Building Official City of Kitchener Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Robert De Berardis Gary Burtch Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING May 15, 2003 DATE OF RULING May 15, 2003 APPEARANCES Rick Reichard Snider Reichard March Architects Waterloo, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Lynn Balfour Building Code Specialist City of Kitchener Designate for the Respondent

2 RULING 1. The Applicant Shaune Lawton, Executive Director, Sunbeam Residential Development Centre, has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing a group home at 3 Janet Court, Kitchener, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant is constructing a group home having a Group B Division 3 occupancy. The structure is one storey in building height and approximately 316 m 2 in building area. The building is comprised of combustible construction and will be equipped with a sprinkler system. The construction in dispute involves the requirement of power door openers for the operation of the front entry of the proposed building. The Applicant has proposed that the use of power door openers presents a hazard, because residents would be capable of physically activating the opening devices and then possibly leaving the facility unnoticed or unattended. This would be a dangerous occurrence, because the proposed building will house some individuals with profound mental and physical disabilities. The Applicant is seeking relief from this requirement on the basis that there is sufficiency of compliance due to the 24 hour staffing that will be provided on the premises. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the 24 hour per day staffing at the subject residential care facility offered in lieu of automatic door openers provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (5) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). Article of the OBC requires that buildings of Group B Division 3 occupancy be provided with barrier-free entrances. As defined in the Code, barrier-free means that a building and its facilities can be approached, entered, and used by persons with physical or sensory disabilities. Sentence (5) of Article provides some of the construction requirements in order to fulfill the barrier-free standards mandated in Article of the OBC. Specifically, it requires that buildings of Group B, Division 2 or 3 major occupancy, be equipped with a power door opener. The intent of this sentence is to provide freedom of movement for disabled individuals, so that they are not required to depend on assistance when accessing the building. The Appendix to Sentence (5), while not formally part of the OBC, provides useful information regarding the application of the Sentence at hand. It states that; [d]oors equipped with a power operator activated by a pressure plate identified with the international symbol for accessibility or, where security is required, by a key, card or radio transmitter, and that can otherwise be opened manually meet the intent of the requirement. To achieve sufficiency of compliance with the Code, the Applicant has submitted that 24 hour staffing will be implemented at the proposed building to provide the proper supervision and to assist residents

3 when entering and exiting the building. The Applicant has also added that the appropriate rough-ins are being made for the possible installation of automatic door openers should circumstances change in the future. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code (5) Doorways and Doors (5) Except as permitted in Sentence (7), the door for the entrance described in Article shall be quipped with a power door operator in (a) hotels, (b) buildings of Group B, Division 2 or 3 major occupancy, and (c) buildings of Group A, D or E major occupancy having more than 300 m 2 (3,230 ft 2 ) in building area. (See Appendix A.) 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant began by submitting that Sunbeam Residential Development Centre provides care for individuals with some of the most profound mental and physical disabilities. The Agent advised that it is Sunbeam s objective to enhance the quality of their clients lives by trying to normalize their existence to the greatest extent possible. According to the Agent, Sunbeam s mandate of providing clients with a homelike environment has had a good degree of success in improving the quality of life experienced by these individuals. The Agent added, however, that providing clients with a homelike environment has often caused situations of conflict with the general intent of the OBC. The Agent stated that he believes the application of power door operators is inappropriate in this particular case due to the nature of the proposed building, which is intended as a residence for those with physical and mental disabilities. The Agent added that the proposed building is not a public building, but rather a private residential occupancy that will serve private clients. The Agent continued by submitting that he regards the intent of Sentence (5) of the OBC as noble and well warranted in cases where a physically adept person needs assistance. He added that the clients who will live in the facility do not have the cognitive ability to open a door and will therefore always need assistance when entering and exiting the building. The Agent coupled this with the fact that there will be full staffing on site at all times and that he believes the application of Sentence (5) of the OBC, which is more suitable to a commercial use, is not called for in this residential environment. The Agent also submitted that Sunbeam staff has occasionally experienced difficulties when integrating its clients into so-called community living. The Agent added that Sunbeam has always educated new neighbours on their proposals, the designs of the houses, and the numerous safety features contained therein. Despite these attempts, the Agent argued that Sunbeam still faces certain community pressures regarding the appearance of their residential care facilities. The Agent added that one of the primary concerns that community members have with the proposed building is the entrance doors. The Agent argued that the installation of power door openers would make the proposed building look less

4 residential and might not be popular with community members. In summation, the Agent argued that the application of power door openers in the proposed building would present itself to be more of a hazard then an assistance. He reiterated that 24 hour staffing at the proposed building would provide the proper supervision and would also assist residents and visitors when entering and exiting the building. Lastly, the Agent added that the appropriate rough-ins for the installation of power door operators have been made should circumstances change in the future. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that Sentence (5) of the OBC mandates that the main entrance doors of the proposed building be equipped with a power door operator and furthermore, that buildings of B3 occupancy are not listed as exemptions from this provision. The Designate added that the City of Kitchener is not in a position to determine the validity of applying Sentence (5) to the proposed building. The Designate stated that she could envision a scenario where the use of a power door operator in the subject building would be needed (e.g. when an individual in a wheelchair visited the building). The Designate reiterated that the City of Kitchener is only in the position to enforce the provisions of the OBC and not to determine whether provisions can be exempt in certain applications. The Designate concluded by stipulating that she sympathizes with the Applicant s position, but that it is not the City of Kitchener s jurisdiction to determine whether the provisions of the OBC should or should not be applied in the proposed building. The Designate also stated that she recognizes that there may be security issues with a power door operator (e.g., individuals being able to easily enter and exit the proposed building). 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the 24 hour per day staffing at the subject group home offered in lieu of the automatic door openers provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (5) of the Ontario Building Code at 3 Janet Court, Kitchener, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) The facility requires controlled access and the staff is available to operate the entrance door when required. ii) The front door is equipped with a door bell which is hard wired with an audible signal located centrally within the residence.

5 Dated at Toronto this 15th day in the month of May in the year 2003 for application number Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Robert De Berardis Gary Burtch

6

7

8