BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Similar documents
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Suite Permission. Suites complying with shall be permitted to be used to meet the corridor access requirements of

Secondary Suites Changes between the 2006 ABC and the 2014 ABC Requirements

Presentation By. Chris Poujol. Jeffery Rodriguez. James Rigley

City of Brampton Sign By-law Recent and Proposed Changes. Brampton Real Estate Board Presentation October 23, 2017

SIGNS MASTER SIGN PROGRAM

Report to: Development Services Committee February 12, 2018

STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED

THIS CHECKLIST HAS BEEN AMENDED TO INCLUDE ONLY LEVEL ONE CRITERIA AS REQUESTED BY TIR REAL PROPERTY. As such it does not form a complete Checklist.

Enforcement of Ontario Municipal Board Decisions and Orders

APPLICATION OF SECTION 3.8 OF THE 2012 ONTARIO BUILDING CODE FOR: BARRIER-FREE AUDIT OF SENECA COLLEGE NEWNHAM CAMPUS TORONTO, ONTARIO

INFORMATION GUIDE SECOND DWELLING UNITS BUILDING CODE BASICS

Regional District of Nanaimo Secondary Suite Program

COUNCIL ORDER No

2018 CSBC / 2018 CSFSC Part III. Chapter #10. Means of Egress. Table of Contents. Based on the 2015 IBC and the 2015 IFC.

A001 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN A001 1:300 ADDITION DICKINSON DRIVE INGLESIDE, ONTARIO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF EASTERN ONTARIO

Permit fees shall be calculated based on the formula given below, unless otherwise specified in this schedule:

The Fire Code: An Overview for Tenants FEDERATION OF METRO TENANTS ASSOCIATIONS

(2) Determining Occupant Loads for the Operation of a Building (The Alberta Fire Code)

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

SCHEDULE A TO BY-LAW NUMBER (Amended by By-law ) CLASSES OF PERMITS AND PERMIT FEES

BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION

City of Piedmont COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Ontario s 2012 Building Code Barrier-Free Design Amendments Ontario Regulation 332/12 Amended by O. Regs. 368/13 and 191/14

By-Law of The Corporation of the City of Oshawa

The New NYC Building Code Chapter 10 Means of Egress. New York City Department of Buildings. Technical Affairs. Fatma M. Amer, P.E.

Discuss the history of fires that resulted in much of the development of codes related to means of egress. Review mean of egress terminology

Extracts from the National Building Code of Canada

BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

The following information is required at submission. Complete submissions can be processed within 10 business days.

March 9, Planning Commission. Benjamin J. Ziskal, AICP, CEcD Planning Office

Codes Checklist Document 3

2015 IBC Allowable Heights and Areas

Dispute Resolution Services

CITY OF MOUNT PLEASANT ORDINANCE NO. 1017

NEW ACCESSIBILITY CHANGES

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS OLDER THAN FIVE YEARS

NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT. Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Rule

E1-12: Final Decision AS

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL BY-LAW NUMBER

Schedule C Barrier-Free Design

CHAPTER 13 SIGNS 13-1

Ontario Municipal Board Decision/Order issued on July 2, 2014 in Board File No. PL CITY OF TORONTO. BY-LAW No (OMB)

BUILDING DIVISION SIMPLIFIED BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE January 01st, 2019 to December 31st, 2019

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Staff Report for Coleman SFD Addition Coastal Development Permit with Hearing

Copyright 2013, Queen s Printer for Ontario

The Bonus Zoning policy will be applied in conjunction with the Implementation policies contained within the Official Plan.

2014 OSSC CHAPTER 10 - MEANS OF EGRESS TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ontario Municipal Board Decision issued July 28, 2014 and Orders issued December 4 and 17, 2015 in Board File No. PL CITY OF TORONTO

SCHEDULE A. Permit fees shall be calculated based on the formula given below, unless otherwise specified in this schedule:

SECTION REQUIREMENT PROPOSAL. An E-Employment sign district may contain a wall sign provided the sign shall only be erected at the first storey.

Director, Community Planning, North York District

Technical and Regulatory Nuances Building codes & Accreditation

22 POTENTIAL ONTARIO BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS FOR MID-RISE WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS UP TO SIX STOREYS

c 211 Hotel Fire Safety Act

CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW To adopt a new City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 519, Infill Construction, Public Notice.

Regulation Outline. Under section 59 of the Community Planning Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council makes the following Regulation:

Section 9.5. Design of Areas, Spaces and Doorways

GENERAL INFORMATION. Landlord s Tenant Coordinator

CHAPTER 154: SIGNS. Section

Homeowners Guide to Accessory Dwelling Units

FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION

West Hastings Street By-law No (Being a By-law to Amend By-law 3575, being the Zoning and Development By-law)

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GUELPH. WHEREAS the City of Guelph will experience growth through development and redevelopment;

DRS RWANDA STANDARD. Code of practice for fire safety. of building. Part 5: Exit requirements and personal hazard.

Toronto and East York Community Council Item TE33.3, as adopted by City of Toronto Council on June 26, 27 and 28, 2018 CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW -2018

City of Brandon Brownfield Strategy

4. CONFIRMATION OF NOTICE The Planning Coordinator will confirm how Notice was served to advertise this Public Meeting.

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING NEW BUFFALO CITY HALL 224 W. BUFFALO STREET NEW BUFFALO MI AGENDA March 14, 2019 at 10:00am

EX28.8 REPORT FOR ACTION. Community Space Tenancy Policy SUMMARY

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING STAFF REPORT

IOSCO TOWNSHIP ZONING ARTICLE 11 SIGNS

ARTICLE 9: Sign Standards

SPECIALIZED RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT (R.4) ZONES

Director of Toronto Building and Deputy Chief Building Official

SUBJECT: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for 4853 Thomas Alton Boulevard

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. By Palmisano

11A Accessibility Standards Frequently Asked Questions for Residential Projects

S U B D I V I S I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T A P P E A L B O A R D A G E N D A

CHAPTER 4 LIGHT, VENTILATION & OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS

REPORT TO COUNCIL. To: Mayor Schaffer and Councillors. UBCM Resolution on Sprinklers for 4-Storey Balconies. Report #:

Scarborough Community Council Item SC32.3, as adopted by City of Toronto Council on July 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30, 2018 CITY OF TORONTO

ZONING AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION & SIDEWALK WAIVER REQUEST STAFF REPORT Date: November 16, 2006

CITY CLERK. (City Council at its Special Meeting held on July 30, 31 and August 1, 2002, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

Urban Planning and Land Use

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

The terms for completing the transaction are considered to be fair, reasonable and reflective of market value.

Transcription:

Ruling No.03-10-908 Application No. 2003-06 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 3.3.1.8.(1) and 3.2.3.6.(1) and 3.3.1.9.(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 3.3.1.8.(1) and 3.4.3.6.(1) when considering the provisions of Sentence 3.3.1.9.(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- 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 1828.8 m (6 ft) wide and the remaining 50% measuring 2438.4 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 3.3.1.8.(1) and 3.4.3.6.(1) when considering the provisions of Sentence 3.3.1.9.(3) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). Sentence 3.3.1.8.(1) requires that, with an exception not applicable here, the minimum headroom clearance in every access to exit must conform with Article 3.4.3.6. Sentence (1) of Article 3.4.3.6. stipulates that the headroom clearance requirements for exits must be not less than 2,100 mm. Sentence 3.3.1.9(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 3.3.1.8. 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 3.4.3.6. for exits.

-3-3.4.3.6.(1) Headroom Clearance (1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2) to (4), every exit shall have a headroom clearance of not less than 2 100 mm. 3.3.1.9.(3) Corridors (3) Except as permitted by Sentence (4), obstructions located within 1 980 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 3.4.3.6.(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 3.3.1.9.(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 3.3.1.9.(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 3.3.1.8.(1) and 3.4.3.6.(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.

-4-7. 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 3.3.1.8.(1), 3.4.3.6.(1) and 3.3.1.9.(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.

Dated at Toronto this 20th day in the month of March in the year 2003 for application number 2003-06. -5- Michael Steele, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse Donald Pratt