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 Sentence (8) of Regulation 403/97,as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Mostafa Ahanchi, Mitchell C. Smith Architects, for resolution of a dispute with Brenda Campbell, Chief Building Official, City of Brampton, to determine whether the proposed guard, serving exterior exit stairs in a Group F, Division 2 industrial occupancy building and having been designed with horizontal members which will be located between 140 mm and 900 mm above the level being protected, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (8) of the Building Code at Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 8495 Goreway Drive, City of Brampton, Ontario. APPLICANT Mostafa Ahanchi Mitchell C. Smith Architects Bellevue, Washington RESPONDENT PANEL Brenda Campbell Chief Building Official City of Brampton, Ontario Tony Chow, Chair Gerry Egberts Yaman Uzumeri PLACE Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING November 22, 2007 DATE OF RULING November 22, 2007 APPEARANCES Randy Brown Randal Brown Architect Ltd., Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Lillyan McGinn Manager of Plans and Permits City of Brampton, Ontario Designate for the Respondent

2 - 2 - RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, 1992, to remedy certain alleged code deficiencies at Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 8495 Goreway Drive, City of Brampton, Ontario. The subject building is an existing Group F, Division 2 medium hazard industrial warehouse facility. The building is one storey in building height and has a building area of 33, 183 m 2. It is comprised of non-combustible construction material and is equipped with sprinkler and fire alarm systems but not a standpipe and hose system. The existing warehouse has been extended at either end of the building and as a result, a total of twelve new exterior exit stairs were constructed. These exterior exit stairs have been equipped with guards that contain horizontal members between 140 mm and 900 mm above the level being protected. The construction in dispute relates to the design of these guards installed for the twelve new exterior exit stairs. Specifically, the issue in dispute is whether the as-installed guards facilitate climbing. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Guards (8) Unless it can be shown that the location and size of openings do not present a hazard, a guard shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 140 mm (5½ in) and 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) above the level being protected by the guard will facilitate climbing. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant described the building as a Group F, Division 2 warehouse facility that was originally constructed in 1995 and informed the Commission that an addition to the building was constructed in He advised that the warehouse depot is a secure facility which is not open to the public. He indicated that there is a security booth located at the main entrance as well as high perimeter fencing which prevents unauthorized access to the site. In addition, he explained that the facility s security measures include exterior grounds patrols which are maintained around the clock, 365 days per year. In addition, the Agent reported that the doors located on the landing that is protected by the subject guards only open from the inside and that there is no access from the outside. The doors are equipped with a panic set on the inside of the door. He claimed that there is limited use of these doors, which means that there is limited use of the exterior exit stairs. The Agent stated that the issue before the Commission relates to climbability of the guards protecting twelve exterior exit stairs. He indicated that there is not an issue with the existing exterior stairs and added that the guards were designed and installed to match the existing guards. He stressed that the existing guards have served the existing stairs since 1995 and to date there have been no injuries related to the existing guards. The Agent reported that, prior to 1997, the Building Code did not include provisions relating to the climbability of guards in industrial occupancies. He further reported that Sentence

3 (8), the provision in dispute, was introduced in the 1997 edition of the Building Code. He maintained that the intent of this provision was to require guards to be designed so that they are not climbable, unless it can be shown that the location and size of openings do not present a hazard to children. He argued that this code change was aimed at children, who are more likely to attempt to climb a guard, and for occupancies such as churches or shopping malls. In addition, he referred to the proposed Code change document for the 1997 edition of the Building Code, specifically referencing the reason for the proposed change, which indicated that the limits were being placed on the construction of guards to make them safer for children. The Agent advised that based on the type of occupancy of the building, it is his belief that sufficiency of compliance with the intent of the Code has been achieved. He stated that the building is a warehouse depot that is not open to the public and that children would not be present at the site. He claimed that if the Code intended to ensure that guards could not be climbed at all that the Code would have been more explicit in its wording. He maintained that the as-installed guards do not present a hazard to children since children would not be present at the facility. In summary, the Agent indicated that the real issue in dispute is not whether the guard facilitates climbing but rather whether or not it presents a hazard. He maintained that the occupancy of this specific building and the security measures that are in place adequately address the hazard associated with guard climability. In his opinion, the Agent argued that sufficiency of compliance has been achieved in this instance. 4. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the subject guards include horizontal members between 140 mm and 900 mm above the level being protected by the guard and therefore, the guards do not comply with Sentence (8) of the Building Code. The Designate asserted that Sentence (8) is not written in such a way so as to only apply to premises where the general public or children have access. She maintained that this Sentence applies to all occupancies. In support of this argument, she advised that Sentence (6) which permits spacing of guards in industrial occupancies to be 200 mm apart. It is her opinion that the Building Code already anticipates the absence of children in industrial occupancies and as such, Sentence (8) is intended to apply to all occupancies, including industrial occupancies. The Designate submitted that the building permit for the existing guards was issued under the 1990 edition of the Building Code, which did not address the issue of climbability of guards and therefore the existing guards with horizontal members were in compliance with the 1990 Building Code. She indicated that regardless of the configuration of the existing guards or any previous Code requirements that pertained to design and/or configuration of guards, the design, construction and configuration of the subject guards must conform to the Building Code that was in effect at the time the permit was issued. In response to the Agent for the Applicant s argument that a hazard does not exist since children will not be present at the site, the Designate maintained that there are many factors that contribute to the degree of hazard, such as the frequency of use of the stairs, exposure to weather conditions, and who uses the area. In summation, the Designate declared that Sentence (8) of the Building Code specifically speaks to a requirement for guards to not facilitate climbing, unless it can be shown that the location and size of openings do not present a hazard. She reiterated that it is the opinion of the

4 - 4 - municipality that the subject guards facilitate climbing and further that the municipality is not convinced that the subject guards do not present a hazard. Therefore, the subject guards do not comply with the requirements of the Building Code. 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed guard, serving exterior exit stairs in a Group F, Division 2 industrial occupancy building and having been designed with horizontal members which will be located between 140 mm and 900 mm above the level being protected provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (8) of the Building Code at Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd., 8495 Goreway Drive, City of Brampton, Ontario, on condition that: a) Notices shall be permanently and prominently posted in the vicinity of the subject exterior exit stairs advising staff and personnel that the guards in these areas are not to be climbed. 6. Reasons i) The subject building is a medium hazard industrial occupancy that serves as a distribution centre, which is not open to the public. The site is owned and occupied by Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. and there are no other tenants located on the site. ii) The Commission was advised that the depot has been constructed as a secure facility. A security booth located at the main entrance combined with a high perimeter fence prevents unauthorized access to the site. Exterior grounds patrols are conducted around the clock every day of the year. In addition, all staff are required to be participate in health and safety training. iii) The doors leading to the stairs where the subject guards are located are not the main entrance doors. They are required exits and only open from the inside. There is no handle to open the door from the outside. Occupants of the building would enter the building through the main entrance doors. iv) In the opinion of the Commission, the controlled access to the facility, the infrequent use of the stairs and the additional security measures in place at this facility along with adherence to the above noted condition provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (8) of the Building Code.

5 - 5 - Dated at Toronto this 22 nd day in the month of November in the year 2007 for application number Tony Chow, Chair Gerry Egberts Yaman Uzumeri