BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No. B 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 with Sentences (9) and (1) of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Fernando Fabiani, Fabiani Architect Ltd., for the resolution of a dispute with Mike Leonard, Chief Building Official, City of Oshawa, to determine whether the proposed egress system for the ground floor level of a four storey building containing Group B, Division 3 and Group C major occupancies, where one of the required means of egress from the suites passes through a public corridor into a "corridor used by the public" or common area leading to an exit, provides sufficiency of compliance with Division B, Sentence (9) and (1) of the 2006 Building Code at 1255 Bloor Street East, Oshawa, Ontario APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Fernando Fabiani, Fabiani Architect Ltd Burlington, ON Mike Leonard Chief Building Official City of Oshawa Leslie Morgan, Vice-Chair Rick Florio Neal Barkhurst Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING March 19, 2009 DATE OF RULING March 19, 2009 APPEARANCES Fernando Fabiani, Fabiani Architect Ltd Burlington, ON The Applicant Cveta Prgin Building Engineer City of Oshawa Designate for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a retirement home with both Group B, Division 3, and Group C occupancies at 1255 Bloor Street East, Oshawa, Ontario. The proposed building is 4 storeys in building height, 1695 m² in building area, comprised of non-combustible construction, containing both Group B, Division 3 and Group C occupancies, and is equipped with a sprinkler system, fire alarm system, and a standpipe and hose system. Sentence (9) of the Building Code requires that at the point where a doorway referred to in Sentence (8) opens onto a public corridor or exterior passageway, it shall be possible to go in opposite directions to each of 2 separate exits. Sentence (1) of the Code states that a public corridor shall be separated from the remainder of the storey by a fire separation. The construction in dispute involves the means of egress from the suites on the ground floor of the subject building. The Applicant proposes to provide two means of egress from the doorway of each suite, where one of the required means of egress will pass through a public corridor into a corridor used by the public which contains an occupancy that then leads to an exit. The subject corridor used by the public that is part of the path of travel for exiting, contains a common area for the residents which includes a dining area. One of the required exits from the ground floor suites will require residents to travel through the ground floor common area to an exit door. Therefore, the dispute before the Commission is to determine whether the proposed egress design sufficiently complies with the Code requirements for means of egress and public corridor separations. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Means of Egress (9) Except as permitted by this Section and by Sentence (2), at the point where a doorway referred to in Sentence (8) opens onto a public corridor or exterior passageway, it shall be possible to go in opposite directions to each of 2 separate exits Public Corridor Separations (1) Except as otherwise required by this Part or as permitted by Sentence (4), a public corridor shall be separated from the remainder of the storey by a fire separation. 3. Applicant s Position The Applicant submitted that the proposed retirement home does not provide care for its occupants but provides supervision only. He explained that the building is comprised of both Group C and Group B, Division 3 occupancies and further, that only the 4 th floor of the building would contain the Group B, Division 3 occupancy. The Applicant advised that the ground floor of the building contains a common dining area for the occupants. The dining area has been located on the ground level close to the front entrance of the building. The Applicant submitted that an

3 -3- occupant exiting from a suite on the ground floor would be able to travel in opposite directions to each of two exits. The Applicant explained that one of the means of egress proposed would allow occupants to travel through a public corridor into a common area, in this case a ground floor dining area, to an exit door. The Applicant argued that Sentence (9) of the Code requires that upon exiting from a suite onto a public corridor, it shall be possible to go in opposite directions to each of two separate exits and that the subject design meets this requirement. He stressed that the Code does not say that both directions for exiting need to be by public corridor only. Further, the Applicant argued that Sentence (5) of the Code states that a corridor used by the public is allowed to contain an occupancy. The Applicant submitted that if the corridor width were to be considered to be very wide bound by gridlines 2 and 25, referring to the drawings submitted to the municipality and Commission, then the requisite fire separation requirements are met. The Applicant advised that the corridors have been designed to meet the Code requirements for corridors including: maintaining the minimum unobstructed width, having smoke detectors, emergency lighting, meeting flame spread ratings, maximum travel distances, having no deadend portions and no fuel fired appliances in the corridor. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the ground floor residential suites is served by a public corridor that passes through a common area (dining hall) to an exit door and that there is no fire separation proposed between the public corridor and the common area. The Respondent argued that Sentence (9) of the Code requires that two separate exits are provided at each end of a public corridor and that in this case, the proposed public corridor leads to another occupancy; not to an exit. Further, the Respondent argued that Sentence (1) of the Code states that a public corridor is required to be fire separated from the remainder of the building, however, in the subject design the proposed 2400 mm wide public corridor is not fire separated from the common area. The Respondent advised that the total floor area of the common area is approximately 400 m², which is more than 23% of the ground floor area and the occupant load of the common area is approximately 108 persons. The Respondent maintained that in her opinion, the subject egress design from the ground floor suites did not achieve compliance with the Building Code. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed egress system for the ground floor level of a four storey building containing Group B, Division 3 and Group C major occupancies, where one of the required means of egress from the suites passes through a public corridor onto a "corridor used by the public" or common area leading to an exit, provides sufficiency of compliance with Division B, Sentence (9) and (1) of the 2006 Building Code at 1255 Bloor Street East, Oshawa, Ontario

4 -4- Reasons i) It is the Commission s opinion that the ground floor area in question is comparable to the design of a Group B, Division 2 occupancy nursing home or hospital regulated under Article of the Building Code. Although the ground floor area of the subject building contains a Group C major occupancy and no care is provided on this floor, the proposed design of the floor area is comparable for the following reasons: a) Sentence (2) requires a floor area containing patients or residents sleeping rooms in a hospital or nursing home to be divided into no fewer than 2 fire compartments, each not more than m 2 in area. In this building the fire compartments on the ground floor containing residential suites are not more than 1000 m². ii) iii) iv) b) Sentence (4) requires that the fire-resistance rating of the fire separation between the fire compartments must not be less than 1 h. In this building the fire separations between the fire compartments on the ground floor area are not less than 1 hour. c) Sentence (9) requires walls between patient s or resident s sleeping rooms and the remainder of the floor area to be constructed as fire separations but are not required to have a fire resistance rating unless it is required by other provisions of Part 3 of the Code. In this case, the resident s suites are separated from the common areas by a 1 hour fire separation. The Commission was advised that the corridors on the ground floor area have been designed to meet the minimum Code requirements for corridors, which include but are not limited to: minimum unobstructed width, smoke detectors, emergency lighting levels, flame spread ratings, maximum travel distances, no dead-end portions and no fuel fired appliances. Sentence (5) of the Building Code states, If a corridor contains an occupancy, the occupancy shall not reduce the unobstructed width of the corridor to less than its required width. Therefore, the Code permits occupancies in corridors provided the corridors are designed appropriately. Occupancies in the ground floor corridors of this building do not reduce the unobstructed width to less than 1100 mm. The dining area on the ground floor, which forms part of the corridor used by the public, is a subsidiary occupancy to the Group C occupancy use and is not required to be separated from the adjacent occupancies or corridor. v) The dining area is only for the use for the residents of the facility and their guests.

5 -5- Dated at Toronto this 19 th day in the month of March in the year 2009 for application number Leslie Morgan, Vice-Chair Rick Florio Neal Barkhurst

6 -6-