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 Sentences (1) and (1) and (3) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00, 283/01 and 220/02 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Santiago Kunzle, Montgomery Sisam Architects Incorporated, for the resolution of a dispute with Bruce Ashton, Deputy Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, to determine whether the headroom clearance provided in access to exits which would measure 1980 mm beneath the exit signs located in the middle of the corridor at the ceiling level, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (1) and (1) when considering the provisions of Sentence (3) of the Ontario Building Code at Extendicare Rouge Valley, 551 Conlins Road,. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Santiago Kunzle Montgomery Sisam Architects Incorporated Bruce Ashton Deputy Chief Building Official City of Toronto Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse Donald Pratt DATE OF HEARING March 20, 2003 DATE OF RULING March 20, 2003 APPEARANCES James Ware Larden Muniak Consulting Inc. Agent for the Applicant Bruce Ashton Deputy Chief Building Official City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Santiago Kunzle, Montgomery Sisam Architects Incorporated, has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and has constructed a long term care facility referred to as Extendicare Rouge Valley at 551 Conlins Road,. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a long term care facility having a Group B, Division 2 occupancy classification. The structure is 3,230 m 2 in building area and is 3 storeys in building height. It is comprised of noncombustible construction and equipped with both fire alarm and sprinkler systems. The construction in dispute involves the placement of exit signs in the corridors which provide access to exit. The signs have been positioned such that they are in the middle of the corridors, at ceiling level, and provide a minimum headroom clearance of 1,980 mm from the floor surface. The corridors themselves have been designed to exceed minimum corridor width requirements of the Code with 50% of the corridors measuring m (6 ft) wide and the remaining 50% measuring mm (8 ft wide). The ceiling corridor itself meets the 1,200 mm minimum height requirement except beneath the subject exit sign projections. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the location of the exit signs, in corridors serving as access to exit, provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (1) and (1) when considering the provisions of Sentence (3) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). Sentence (1) requires that, with an exception not applicable here, the minimum headroom clearance in every access to exit must conform with Article Sentence (1) of Article stipulates that the headroom clearance requirements for exits must be not less than 2,100 mm. Sentence (3) in respect to corridors states that, obstructions located in corridors within 1,980 mm of the floor shall not project more than 100 mm horizontally so as to avoid the creation of a hazard for persons with visual disabilities travelling next to the walls. In respect to the subject dispute, the minimum headroom clearance in the corridors which serve as access to exit will be reduced to a minimum of 1,980 mm beneath the exit sign projections from the ceiling in the centre of the corridor. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Headroom Clearance (1) Except within the floor area of a storage garage, the minimum headroom clearance in every access to exit shall conform to the requirements of Article for exits.

3 (1) Headroom Clearance (1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2) to (4), every exit shall have a headroom clearance of not less than mm (3) Corridors (3) Except as permitted by Sentence (4), obstructions located within mm of the floor shall not project more than 100 mm horizontally in a manner that would create a hazard for a person with a visual disability travelling adjacent to the walls in (a) an exit passageway, (b) a public corridor, (c) a corridor used by the public, (d) a corridor serving classrooms, or (e) a corridor serving patients or residents sleeping rooms in a Group B, Division 2 or Division 3 occupancy. 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant acknowledged the OBC provisions outlined in Sentence (1) which require that exits are to have a headroom clearance of not less than 2,100 mm. He noted, however, that the OBC includes further requirements in respect to obstructions to the headroom clearance of corridors providing access to exit. The Agent referred to Sentence (3) and interpreted those provisions to mean that a corridor obstruction located greater than 100 mm from the wall would be permitted, provided that a minimum headroom clearance of 1,980 mm is acheived beneath the obstruction. He submitted that the exit signs in question will comply with this provision of the OBC. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that Sentence (3) is not a remedy in this situation. He noted that there are approximately 50 exit signs in this facility providing a range of 1,925 mm to 2,000 mm of headroom clearance. He stated that the clearance requirements outlined in Sentences (1) and (1) mandate that 2,100 mm be provided. He suggested that the resultant 120 mm reduction in clearance creates a potential headroom hazard for tall persons and fire fighters; particularly since most of the exit signs are located in the middle of the corridors. The Designate noted that the steel framed signs are situated perpendicular to the exit doors. They are ceiling mounted and located more than 100 mm from the walls. This, he stated, provides only 6 ft, 5 in of headroom and there is only 18 in on either side of the sign to access the door. To reduce the hazard, the Designate suggested that some of the signs should be moved from the centre of the corridor, closer to the wall. In summation, the Designate submitted that this newly constructed facility could have been made to comply with the Code and provide adequate clearance. He stated that the Code is silent with respect to obstruction criteria above 1,980 mm and suggested that an amendment may be warranted to make these provisions more transparent.

4 -4-7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed headroom clearance below the corridor exit signs provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (1), (1) and (3) of the Ontario Building Code at Extendicare Rouge Valley, 551 Conlins Road, Toronto, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) All exit signs in the corridor are at a minimum height of 1,980 mm and do not interfere with the required exit width as the as-built corridor width exceeds the minimum Code requirement. ii) Notwithstanding this compliance, the Applicant has accepted the request of the Respondent to relocate exit signs to one side of stairwell exit doors to minimize the potential for physical contact with the exit signs.

5 Dated at Toronto this 20th day in the month of March in the year 2003 for application number Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse Donald Pratt