BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Ruling No. 08-03-1177 Application No. 2007-26 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 Articles 3.4.4.1., 3.4.4.3., Sentences 3.3.1.3.(8), 3.3.1.3.(9), 3.3.1.4.(1), 3.3.1.14.(1) and 3.3.4.4.(7) as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application Scott Sutherland, Maple Crossing Developments Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Terry Kay, Chief Building Official, Town of Milton, to determine whether the omission of the fire rated shutter between the tenant balconies and the exterior passageway in the design of the exit and egress system provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 3.4.4.1., 3.4.4.3., Sentences 3.3.1.3.(8), 3.3.1.3.(9), 3.3.1.4.(1), 3.3.1.14.(1) and 3.3.4.4.(7) of the Building Code at Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Maple Crossing Condominiums, 1479 Maple Avenue, Town of Milton, Ontario APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Scott Sutherland Maple Crossing Developments Inc., Burlington, ON Terry Kay Chief Building Official Town of Milton Tony Chow, Chair Alison Orr Mina Tesseris Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING January 24, 2008 DATE OF RULING January 24, 2008 APPEARANCES Randy Brown Randal Brown Architect Ltd., Toronto, ON Agent for the Applicant John Branant Plans Examiner Town of Milton Designate for the Respondent

-2- RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct 5 separate, 4 storey, Group C residential buildings at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Maple Crossing Condominiums, 1479 Maple Avenue, Town of Milton, Ontario. The subject buildings are of combustible construction and are equipped with a sprinkler system, a standpipe and hose system and a fire alarm system. Each building has between 48 and 56 residential units with a total of 264 units. All suites within each building are provided with a single exit doorway opening onto a public corridor. Sentence 3.3.1.3.(8) of the 1997 Building Code requires each suite in a floor area that serves more than one suite to have an exterior exit doorway or a doorway into a public corridor or in to an exterior passageway. Sentence 3.3.1.3.(9) requires that 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 two separate exits. Exit, as defined by the Code, is that part of a means of egress that leads from the floor area it serves to an exterior open space protected from fire exposure from the building and having access to an open public thoroughfare. The construction in dispute involves the exit and egress system provided for each suite in each building. More specifically, the dispute involves whether a fire rated shutter between the tenant balconies and the exterior passageway in the design of the exit and egress system is required. Each suite, in the subject buildings, has a doorway that exits onto a public corridor; the corridor is served by a fully enclosed exit stair in one direction. In the opposite direction, the public corridor ends at an unrated exterior passageway. Evacuees must travel through the unrated exterior passageway to reach an enclosed exit stair. The exterior passageway is adjacent to tenant occupied balconies and is separated from the balconies by an open guard. The Applicant wishes the Commission to consider the exterior passageways as one of the two required means of egress from the dwelling units. The Respondent is of the opinion that as the exterior passageways include tenant occupied space containing combustible materials and content, and as they are not separated from the rest of the building as required by Sentence 3.4.4.1.(1), the proposed exterior passageways, without a fire rated shutter between the tenant balconies and the exterior passageway, can not be considered equivalent to a sprinklered and fire separated internal public corridor. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute 3.3.1.3. Means of Egress (8) Except as permitted by Sentences 3.3.4.4.(6) and (7), each suite in a floor area that contains more than one suite shall have (a) an exterior exit doorway, or (b) a doorway (i) into a public corridor, or (ii) to an exterior passageway. (9) Except as permitted by this Section and by Sentence 3.4.2.1.(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. 3.3.1.4. Public Corridor Separations

-3- (1) Except as otherwise required by this Part or permitted by Sentences (2) to (7), a public corridor shall be separated from the remainder of the building by a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating not less than 1 h. (See Appendix A.) (2) The fire-resistance rating of a fire separation between a public corridor and the remainder of a floor area is permitted to be less than 1 h but not less than 45 min provided the fireresistance rating required by Subsection 3.2.2. is permitted to be less than 1 h for (a) (b) the floor assembly above the floor area, or the floor assembly below the floor area, if there is no floor assembly above. (3) If a floor area is sprinklered, no fire-resistance rating is required for a fire separation between a public 3.3.1.14. Exterior Passageways (1) An exterior passageway leading to a required exit shall conform to the requirements of Section 3.4. for exterior exit passageways. 3.4.4.1. Fire-Resistance Rating of Exit Separations (1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2), (4), 3.3.5.4.(3), 3.4.4.2.(2) and 3.4.4.3.(1), every exit shall be separated from the remainder of the building by a fire separation having a fire-resistance rating not less than that required by Subsection 3.2.2., but not less than 45 min, for (a) the floor assembly above the storey, or (b) the floor assembly below the storey, if there is no floor assembly above. (2) The fire-resistance rating of the fire separation referred to in Sentence (1) need not be more than 2 h. (3) If an exit stair in an assembly hall or theatre serves more than one balcony level, the exit stair shall be separated from the remainder of the building in conformance with Sentence(1). (4) The path of exit travel may lead from an exit door or exit enclosure through open air parking that is located below a roof or floor assembly that is part of the building served by the exit door or exit enclosure where (a) the portion of the path of exit travel that leads through the open air parking is not more than 9 m (29 ft 6 in) in length measured from the exit door to a point at ground level at the perimeter of the building, (b) measures are taken to prevent vehicles intended to park in spaces adjacent to the path of exit travel from encroaching on the path of exit travel, and (c) an alternate means of egress not leading through the open air parking is available from the interior side of the door opening onto the path of exit travel through the open air parking area. 3.4.4.3. Exterior Passageway Exceptions (1) The requirements of Sentences 3.4.4.1.(1) and 3.2.3.12.(1) and (3) do not apply to an exterior exit passageway provided (a) not less than 50% of the exterior side is open to the outdoors, and

-4- (b) an exit stair is provided at each end of the passageway. 3.4.4.4. Integrity of Exits (1) A fire separation that separates an exit from the remainder of the building shall have no openings except for (a) standpipe and sprinkler piping, (b) electrical wires and cables, totally enclosed noncombustible raceways and noncombustible piping that serve only the exit, (c) openings required by the provisions of Subsection 3.2.6., (d) exit doorways, and (e) wired glass and glass block permitted by Article 3.1.8.14. (2) Exits within scissors stairs and other contiguous exit stairways shall be separated from each other by a smoke-tight fire separation having a fire-resistance rating not less than that required for the floor assembly through which they pass. (3) Fire separations separating contiguous stairs described in Sentence (2) shall not be pierced by doorways, ductwork, piping or any other openings that affect the continuity of the separation. (4) A fuel-fired appliance shall not be installed in an exit. (5) An exit shall not be used as a plenum for a heating, ventilating or air-conditioning system. (6) An exit shall be designed for no purpose other than for exiting, except that an exit is permitted also to be designed to serve as an access to a floor area. (7) A service room shall not open directly into an exit. (8) Storage rooms, washrooms, toilet rooms, laundry rooms and similar ancillary rooms shall not open directly into an exit. (9) Service spaces referred to in Sentence 3.2.1.1.(7) shall not open directly into an exit. (10) In elementary and secondary schools, an exit shall be designed so that it does not serve as an access from one portion of a floor area to another portion of the same floor area. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent submitted that the design concept for the exiting of occupants from each suite of the subject buildings is in dispute. The Agent explained that each suite accesses a public corridor that in one direction leads to an enclosed exit stair and in the other direction leads to an exterior passageway, which is more than 50% open to the exterior on one side and which then leads to an enclosed exit stair. The Agent contended that the Building Code equates an open exterior passageway that is 50% open to the exterior, not fire separated from the remainder of the floor area, and has an exit stair at each end, to a 1 h fire separated public corridor. In other words, the Agent maintained that under the Building Code, an exterior passageway which opens to the exterior with an exit stair at each end and which is not fire separated from the remainder of the floor as per Article 3.4.4.3., can be viewed as equivalent to a 1 h fire separated corridor.

-5- The Agent argued that Sentence 3.3.4.4.(7) of the Code permits a dwelling unit which has a second and separate means of egress to have one means of egress from the dwelling unit passing through an exterior balcony or exterior passageway served by a single exit stairway. The Agent advised that individual balconies or terraces are not intended to be considered a means of egress from the suites to the open passageway. He submitted that Sentence 3.3.1.5.(1) of the Code requires a minimum of two egress doorways from a room or suite however, this Sentence provides dwelling units with an exception to this requirement. Therefore, he stated that only one egress doorway is required for dwelling units. The means of egress being proposed is via the egress door of the suite, which in one direction leads to an enclosed public corridor and then to an enclosed exit stair and in the other direction leads to the enclosed public corridor, which then leads to an exterior passageway, and finally to an enclosed exit stair. The Agent stated that Sentence 3.3.1.8.(8) of the Building Code requires suites in a floor area containing more than one suite (such as this building) to have either an exterior exit doorway or a doorway which opens into a public corridor or to an exterior passageway and that Sentence 3.3.1.14.(1) states that an exterior passageway leading to a required exit shall conform to the requirements of Section 3.4 for exterior exit passageways. The Agent submitted that although the term exterior passageway is not defined in the Code, Article 1.1.3.2. defines a public corridor as a corridor that provides access to more than one suite. Therefore, as the corridors at Maple Crossing provide access to more than one suit, it is his belief that they are considered public corridors. Further, the Agent advised that it was his opinion that a portion of a public corridor can contain an exterior passageway. The Agent maintained that the subject exit design meets the requirements of Sentence 3.3.1.3.(9) of the Code which requires that where a doorway opens onto a public corridor or exterior passageway, it shall be possible for an individual to travel in opposite directions to each of two separate exits. The Agent argued that the subject egress design from the suites at Maple Crossing allows an individual to travel in opposite directions to two separate exits i.e. one can enter the public corridor and from there can travel to an enclosed exit stair or one can choose to travel via the exterior passageway, which leads to an enclosed exit stair. The Agent submitted that the enclosed portions of the public corridor have a fire separation with a fire resistance rating of 1 hour with the doors having a 20 minute fire protection rating and selfclosing devices in accordance with Sentence 3.3.1.4.(1) of the Building Code. The Agent acknowledged that although the exterior passageway is 50% open to the exterior, the passageway does not have an exit stair at each end as required by Article 3.4.4.3. of the Code. However, in the Agent s opinion, the subject design, which includes an enclosed exit stair in the centre of the exterior passageway and access to an enclosed 1 hour fire rated public corridor leading to an enclosed exit stair, meets the intent of the Code for this portion of the means of egress. In fact, he argued, the subject design exceeds the Code requirement as the Code permits open stairs at either end of an exterior exit passageway, which could cause the stairs to be potentially exposed to fire from adjacent storeys or suites. Further, the Agent argued that smoke containment considerations are mitigated by the provision of a portion of the corridor being exterior and a portion being interior since the exterior passageway is open to the outside, smoke accumulation would be reduced. The Agent acknowledged the Respondent s concerns regarding the potential for combustibles and/or ignition sources to accumulate on the balconies adjacent to the exterior passageway, which could then potentially present a hazard to the occupants using the exterior passageway for exiting during a fire. To address this concern, the omission of the fire rated shutter between the tenant balconies and the exterior passageway in the design of the exit and egress system the Agent offered the following compensating measures:

-6- The condominium documents would prohibit any sources of ignition including barbeques and type of vegetation from being present on balconies The balconies would be protected by automatic sprinklers, and Ventilation ductwork from the suite would be extended to the exterior of the passageway using fire rated ductwork In summary, the Agent maintained that the subject egress system can be considered a combination of a public corridor and exterior passageway with those portions of the enclosed public corridor meeting the requirements of a 1hour fire separated public corridor and those portions exterior being considered equivalent to an exterior exit passageway. In both cases, he maintained, the enclosed exit stairs are provided within the required travel distances such that no dead end conditions exist and an occupant is always provided with the choice of two directions of travel. For all these reasons, the Agent contended the proposed design without a fire rated shutter between the tenant balconies and the exterior passageway, provides sufficiency of compliance with the egress and exiting requirements of the Building Code. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the Building Code requires a public corridor to be served by exit stairs at each end and that Clause 3.3.1.3.(8)(b) of the Code requires one to choose either a doorway into a public corridor or a doorway into an exterior passageway (emphasis added) not a combination of both. The Respondent advised that each suite at Maple Crossing has a door opening into a public corridor; however, the corridor is only served by a fully enclosed exit stair in one direction and not in the opposite direction as required by the Code. The Respondent argued that in the other direction, the public corridor ends at an unrated exterior passageway where evacuees must travel thorough the unrated exterior passageway then through an elevator lobby to reach an enclosed exit stair. Further the Respondent argued that the exterior passageway is shared by tenant occupied patios that could contain combustibles and ignition sources, which is a concern as the tenant patios are only separated from the exterior passageway by an open railing. The Respondent maintained that as the exterior passageways are not separated from the remainder of the building as required by Sentence 3.4.4.1.(1) of the Building Code, they cannot be considered equivalent to the sprinklered and fire separated internal public corridor. The Respondent indicated that he believed the level of life safety for an occupant would be reduced by the proposed egress system. The Respondent stated that is was his view the proposed egress design requires the occupants to pass through an area of relatively greater hazard before they could reach the exit. The Respondent advised that to resolve this issue, it was the Municipality s position that the exterior passageways be sprinklered and fire rated shutters be installed from the floor to the underside of the slab immediately adjacent to the open guards/handrails so that if activated in a fire event, the shutters would fire separate the suites and the patios from the exterior passageways. In combination with sprinklering the passageway and ducting the HVAC and vent/exhaust system systems in fire separated duct shafts, it was the Respondent s opinion that these measures would provide sufficiency of compliance with the Code. Further, the Respondent maintained that the applicant had agreed to these measures and that the building permits were issued on this basis. In summary, the Respondent submitted that it was his position that the proposed exterior passageways, which include tenant occupied space that would likely contain combustible materials, if not separated from the rest of the building as required by Sentence 3.4.4.1.(1) of the Code, could not be considered equivalent to a sprinklered and fire separated internal public

-7- corridor. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the omission of the fire rated shutter between the tenant balconies and the exterior passageway in the design of the exit and egress system provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 3.4.4.1., 3.4.4.3., Sentences 3.3.1.3.(8), 3.3.1.3.(9), 3.3.1.4.(1), 3.3.1.14.(1) and 3.3.4.4.(7) of the Building Code at Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Maple Crossing Condominiums, 1479 Maple Avenue, Town of Milton, Ontario on condition that: a) Automatic sprinklers shall be installed on the side wall of each balcony, in the recycling rooms, garbage rooms and resident storage rooms as well as, the exterior passageway in accordance with the standards set out by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13R-1999, Standards for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height, b) The recycling rooms, garbage rooms and the resident storage rooms shall be equipped with doors, having self-closing devices and latches, which provide a minimum fire protection rating of 45 minutes. Further, the recycling rooms, garbage rooms and the resident storage rooms will be separated by a minimum 1 hour fire separation, c) The bathroom exhaust fans, which discharge onto the exterior passageway, shall be equipped with a listed fire damper, d) Exit signs shall be placed throughout the public corridor and exterior passageway in the proposed exit and egress system, clearly showing the direction of exit travel, and e) The doors at each end of each exterior passageway shall have a minimum fire protection rating of 45 minutes. 6. Reasons i) In the opinion of the Commission, the omission of the fire rated shutter with the implementation of the above-mentioned compensating measures, provides sufficiency of compliance with the Building Code requirements. ii) iii) The enclosed exit stairs are within the required travel distances such that no dead end conditions exist and occupants are always provided with the choice of two directions of travel. The exterior passageway, as it is more than 50% open, would reduce smoke accumulation in the means of egress.

-8- Dated at Toronto this 24 th day in the month of January in the year 2008 for application number 2007-26. Tony Chow, Chair Alison Orr Mina Tesseris