Ruling No. 09-10-1222 Application No. 2009-07 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 Article 3.1.2.1 and 3.2.2.6. of Regulation 403/06, as amended, the Building Code. AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by James Doubt, J.E. Doubt Associates Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Ted Marecak, Chief Building Official, City of Belleville, to determine whether the proposal to classify the accessories display area and the all terrain vehicle, motorcycle and small engine equipment showroom, which will form part of a new addition to the existing motor vehicle sales and service building, as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.1.2.1 and 3.2.2.6. of the Building Code at West City Honda, 670 Dundas Street West, R.R.2, Belleville, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE James Doubt J.E. Doubt Associates Inc Coburg, ON Ted Marecak Chief Building Official City of Belleville Tony Chow, Chair Alison Orr Mina Tesseris Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING June 4, 2009 DATE OF RULING June 4, 2009 APPEARANCES Jon Winton Leber / Rubes Inc. Toronto, ON Agent for the Applicant Brett Forestell Deputy Chief Building Official City of Belleville, ON Designate for the Respondent
RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct an addition to an existing vehicle dealership at West City Honda, 670 Dundas Street West, R.R.2, Belleville, Ontario. The existing building is a 1267 m², single storey, and is comprised of a service area, offices and a car showroom. The one storey addition is intended to extend the building horizontally by 733 m² in building area. The building addition will contain a service area, sales office, accessory display area, and a vehicle showroom for such items as all terrain vehicles, motorcycles and small engine equipment. The accessory and display area is expected to occupy approximately 674m² of the total floor area. The building is comprised of noncombustible construction and is not equipped with a sprinkler system, standpipe system or a fire alarm system but is equipped with a monitored security system incorporating fire detection devices. The dispute centers on the major occupancy classification of the addition. Both the Applicant and the Respondent agree that the proposed addition will contain more than one major occupancy and further, agree that the proposed addition will contain Group F, Division 2 and Group D occupancies. However, the Applicant s position is that the accessory display area and showroom should be classified as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy, while it is the Respondent s position that the subject area should be classified as a Group E major occupancy. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute 3.1.2.1. Classification of Buildings (1) Except as permitted by Articles 3.1.2.3. to 3.1.2.6., every building or part of it shall be classified according to its major occupancy as belonging to one of the Groups or Divisions described in Table 3.1.2.1. (2) A building intended for use by more than one major occupancy shall be classified according to all major occupancies for which it is used or intended to be used. 3.2.2.6. Multiple Major Occupancies (1) Except as permitted by Articles 3.2.2.7. and 3.2.2.8., in a building containing more than one major occupancy, the requirements of this Subsection for the most restricted major occupancy contained shall apply to the whole building. 3. Applicant s Position It is the Applicant s position that the building contains a combination of Group D and Group F, Division 2 major occupancies and that the Group D portion of the building includes the sales/administrative office portions of the building and that the Group F, Division 2 portion of the building includes the vehicle showroom, accessories display area and vehicle service shops. The Agent for the Applicant stated that the principal concern to the Applicant, with respect to classifying the showroom and accessory display spaces as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy or E major occupancy, is that a Group F Division 2 classification would not require the building to be sprinklered as a result of its increased building area. The Agent submitted that the vehicle showroom and accessory display area is not a mercantile,
Group E major occupancy, as mercantile occupancies contain substantial quantities of retail goods, displayed in high density arrangements with moderately high occupant loads. On the contrary, motor vehicle showrooms do not have the same high fire loads or high occupant load characteristics as mercantile occupancies and therefore, do not require same levels of fire protection. The Agent submitted that based on Sentence 3.1.17.1.(1) of the Building Code using 3.7 m²/person as per Table 3.1.17.1., the occupant load of the building showroom and accessory display area would be 182 persons for a mercantile occupancy. The Agent claimed that although the Building Code does not provide an occupant load factor for automobile showrooms 182 person occupant load is excessive for the intended use and that an occupant load of 72 persons for a showroom is more realistic based on the office occupant load factor of 9.3 m²/person, as purchases require the assistance of a sales person and sales offices are provided for a limited quantity of staff. The Agent argued that a Group F, Division 2 occupancy for the showroom and display areas is a reasonable classification as contents are displayed in a manner that is not representative of the high combustible loads of a retail or department store. The showroom will contain samples of vehicles, power equipment and accessories that are available for purchase with accessory displays are expected to carry a limited quantity of apparel, for example: jackets, shirts, helmets, and gloves. The Agent submitted that the sample vehicles and equipment displayed are in new condition, stationary, contain no fuel, have disconnected batteries to reduce spark ignition potential and are not operated within the showroom. As a result, the risk of fire in the vehicle showroom is considered to be less that of a storage garage (F-3 occupancy) or a repair garage (F-2 occupancy), where vehicles are under individual control, in operation, contain fuel, may be in poor condition or may be undergoing service. The Agent argued that as per Appendix note A-3.1.2.1.(1) of the 2005 National Building Code of Canada includes salesrooms as both Group F, Division 2 and 3 major occupancies rather than Group E mercantile and therefore, an automobile dealer s showroom is consistent with this use. The Agent further argued that the Ontario Office of Fire Marshal s standard fire incident reporting system used to collect fire incident data utilizes the alphabetical occupancy classification system of the Ontario Building Code and specifically, identifies motor vehicle sales and motor vehicle parts, accessory sales as Group F industrial occupancies rather than Group E mercantile occupancy. In summary, the Agent stated that it was the Applicant s position that neither the building addition nor the existing building are required to be sprinklered because the showroom and display areas are classified as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy. 4. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that Article 3.1.2.1. of the Ontario Building Code states, a building intended for use by more than one major occupancy shall be classified according to all major occupancies for which it is used or intended to be used. He stated that the proposed addition to the building is to be used by Honda Power Products for the sales and servicing of products such as: motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, marine, lawn and garden power equipment, generators, water pumps and snow blowers. The Designate described the existing building s uses are motor vehicle sales, parts and apparel sales and motor vehicle repair garage.
He therefore, claimed that the subject building would contain Group F, Division 2, Group D and Group E, major occupancies. The Designate explained that when determining the classification of the building according to Sentence 3.1.2.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, the corresponding Appendix note was also referenced and reviewed. The Appendix advised that to ensure correct classification, refer to the definitions for each occupancy in Part 1, of Division A. The Designate stated that when reviewing the occupancy definitions for Group D, Group E, and Group F2 in the Building Code, it was evident that the extended building would contain all of the above occupancies, including Group E, mercantile occupancy. The Designate referring to Division A of the Building Code, stated that mercantile occupancy is defined as the occupancy or use of a building or part of a building for the displaying or selling of retail goods, wares or merchandise, and as such, the use of the accessories display area and the small engine showroom are considered a Group E, mercantile occupancy. Further, the Designate argued that as per Sentence 3.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code which states, Except as permitted by Articles 3.2.2.7. and 3.2.2.8., in a building containing more than one major occupancy, the requirements of this Subsection for the most restricted major occupancy contained shall apply to the whole building that when determining the building size and construction relative to occupancy, the Group E building classification is the most restricted major occupancy and would therefore, require the building to be sprinklered. The Designate also pointed out that although the 2005 National Building Code of Canada included the term salesroom as both a Group F, Division 2 and 3 major occupancy the Ontario Building Code listed salesroom as a group F, Division 2 or 3 major occupancy until 1997, when it was removed from the list. The Designated concluded that the removal of this term from the Group F, Division 2 or 3 occupancy category was intentional for the purpose of more accurately reflecting the many possible combination of uses that could be applicable to a salesroom occupancy. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposal to classify the accessories display area and the all terrain vehicle, motorcycle and small engine equipment showroom, which will form part of a new addition to the existing motor vehicle sales and service building, as a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article 3.1.2.1 and 3.2.2.6. of the Building Code at West City Honda, 670 Dundas Street West, R.R.2, Belleville, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) Article 3.1.2.1. of Division B of the Building Code states, (1) every building or part of it shall be classified according to its major occupancy as belonging to one of the Groups or Divisions described in Table 3.1.2.1. and (2) A building intended for use by more than one major occupancy shall be classified according to all major occupancies for which it is used or intended to be used. The Commission heard that the parties were in agreement that the proposed addition will contain more than one major occupancy and further, agreed that the proposed addition would contain Group F, Division 2 and Group D occupancies. However, the parties were not in agreement that the display area and showroom be classified as a Group E major occupancy.
Division A, Part 1 of the Building Code defines Mercantile occupancy as the occupancy or use of a building or part of a building for the displaying or selling of retail goods, wares or merchandise. Based on the evidence, drawings and testimony of the parties and the definition of a mercantile occupancy as described in the Building Code, it is the Commission s opinion that the proposed building addition will contain a Group E major occupancy where merchandise will be displayed and sold. ii) Sentence 3.2.2.6.(1) of Division B of the Building Code states, Except as permitted by Articles 3.2.2.7. and 3.2.2.8., in a building containing more than one major occupancy, the requirements of this Subsection for the most restricted major occupancy contained shall apply to the whole building. In this case, the most restricted major occupancy contained in the building is the Group E major occupancy and therefore, the construction requirements for a Group E major occupancy apply to the building.
Dated at Toronto this 4 th day in the month of June in the year 2009 for application number 2009-07. Tony Chow, Chair Alison Orr Mina Tesseris