BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "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 Sentence (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 Frank Mills, Westside Cemeteries Ltd., for the resolution of a dispute with Ms. Ann Borooah, Chief Building Official, City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposed addition to a Group F, Division 3 occupancy that will not be equipped with water closets, but is located 250 metres away from an adjacent building on the same property that contains water closets, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (3) of the Ontario Building Code at Westminster Cemetery Mausoleum, 3850 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Frank Mills Westside Cemeteries Ltd Weston, Ontario Ms. Ann Borooah Chief Building Official City of Toronto Tony Chow, Vice-Chair Robert De Berardis Gary Burtch Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING August 28, 2003 DATE OF RULING August 28, 2003 APPEARANCES David Hine Hine Reichard Tomlin Inc. Markham, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Tony Fiorino Building Engineer City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Frank Mills, Westside Cemeteries Ltd., has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing an addition to a mausoleum at Westminster Cemetery Mausoleum, 3850 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant is constructing a second-storey addition to an existing single-storey mausoleum having a Group F, Division 3 occupancy. The second-storey addition is proposed to have an area of approximately 311 m 2, while the existing single-storey facility has a building area of 946 m 2. Both the existing facility, and the proposed addition, are of non-combustible construction. The issue at dispute pertains to the requirement of providing a plumbing system to serve occupants in the subject mausoleum. The Applicant is of the opinion that a plumbing system, specifically water closets, is not required, because the subject mausoleum is not normally occupied and there are barrierfree public washrooms provided in a nearby building located approximately 250 m away. While the Respondent agrees that the water closets can be excluded, he is also of the opinion that the 250 m travel distance is too great. Since the Ontario Building Code does not require a minimum travel distance to a washroom, at issue is whether the distance of 250 m is reasonable for a visitor to travel. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposed addition to a Group F, Division 3 occupancy that will not be equipped with water closets, but is located 250 metres away from another building located on the same property that contains water closets, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (3) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). Since its inception, the OBC has required buildings to be provided with, or have accessible to its occupants, a plumbing system. Despite this, the first edition of the Code did provide an exemption to this provision in situations when the installation of a sanitary drainage system was not possible because of the absence of a water supply. In cases such as this, however, the Code also required that other means for the disposal of human waste be provided, for instance, sanitary privies or chemical closets. In 1978, an amendment to the Code was introduced stipulating that plumbing facilities may be omitted in a building that is not normally occupied by persons, where such installations are impractical, and where other facilities are available in nearby buildings when the subject building is in use. The current Code [as prescribed in Sentence (3)] continues to include this exemption; however, the Sentence numbering has changed from the 1978 amendment. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Plumbing and Drainage Systems (3) Plumbing fixtures need not be provided in a building which is not normally occupied by persons where such installations are impractical and other fixtures are available in nearby buildings when the subject building is in use.

3 -3-5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant began by offering a brief description of the site on which the subject mausoleum is located. The Agent advised that the site consists of burial plots, access roads, and a total of fifteen mausoleums. The subject mausoleum is located on the southwest corner of the access road that provides entrance into the mausoleum complex. The Agent continued by advising that the subject mausoleum consists of an above grade, indoor cemetery where the deceased are buried in crypts. He stated that the subject mausoleum is both nominally heated, as well as nominally cooled. The Agent submitted that despite the fact that the subject mausoleum is not serviced by a municipal water main, potable water is available. He added that there is no assembly space, per se, offered in the mausoleum, and that there are relatively few services held in the facility. As per the Agent, the crypts in the subject mausoleum are approximately 60% occupied, thereby, resulting in the need to construct the second storey addition. As indicated by the Agent, a permit was issued for the addition to the subject mausoleum. Shortly thereafter, however, a revision to the permit was applied for that pertained to the removal of the proposed janitor closets and the water closets shown on the original permit application drawings. The Agent submitted that the proposal to remove the water closets was based on the fact that the subject mausoleum is not normally occupied and is located within a reasonable distance to an adjacent building that has barrier-free washrooms. Furthermore, he submitted that while constructing the addition results in an increase in the number of crypts, it does not translate to an increase in the occupant load. As per the Agent, the addition will simply assist in re-establishing visitation to the mausoleum, as it has been found that the number of visits to a mausoleum decrease as time from date of burial increases. In this regard, the Agent maintained that the existing water closets, located in an adjacent building 250 m away, should be adequate as the occupant load is not increasing as a result of the addition. The Agent then submitted that while the City of Toronto Building Department agrees that washrooms are not required by the OBC in the subject mausoleum, they feel that the travel distance to the nearest water closet, is too far. He submitted that the crux of the matter before the Commission is a subjective determination of whether 250 m is too far to travel to the washroom, since in this instance the OBC does not require a minimum travel distance to a washroom. In summary, the Agent argued that the subject mausoleum should not be required to have water closets, because the building is not normally occupied. Furthermore, he submitted that the proposed addition will not result in an increase in occupancy, but will rather assist in maintaining current visitation levels to the mausoleum. Finally, the Agent argued that water closets should not be required on the basis that barrier-free washrooms are located within 250 m of the subject mausoleum which, in his opinion, is a reasonable distance for visitors to travel. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that drawings for the original permit application showed two washrooms for the subject mausoleum, but that a revision to remove these was later made due to fiscal constraints. He then stated that the OBC does not specifically address the provision of water closets in mausoleums, but that the expectation on the part of visitors to find these types of sanitary facilities still exists, as mausoleums are typically buildings with controlled environments. Furthermore, the Agent submitted that while there are no expectations in an open, outdoor cemetery to have plumbing facilities available, there are within buildings were funeral services are held. The Designate continued by submitting that the Applicant is proposing to use the sanitary facilities

4 -4- located in a building 250 m away in lieu of providing water closets in the proposed mausoleum addition. As per the Designate, this is not a reasonable distance for occupants to travel, especially given the mental and physical state that occupants may be in when they are within subject mausoleum. Furthermore, he added that the plumbing facilities may be difficult to access during inclement weather. The Designate then advised that he believes a travel distance of 250 m is unreasonable, especially since an occupant will have to leave the subject mausoleum, travel a distance of 250 m, and then enter a second mausoleum to access sanitary facilities. He submitted that while he acknowledges that Sentence (3) of the OBC permits the exemption of plumbing fixtures when these are available in a nearby building, he does not believe that a travel distance of 250 m meets the intent of the Code. In summary, the Designate argued that while the OBC does not specifically address the provision of water closets in mausoleums, there still exists the expectation that these types of sanitary facilities will be provided. He also acknowledged that Sentence (3) of the Code permits the exemption of plumbing fixtures in certain building when these fixtures are provided in a nearby building. Despite this, the Designate submitted that he believes the proposed travel distance of 250 m is excessive for a visitor to travel. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed addition to a Group F, Division 3 occupancy that will not be equipped with water closets will provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (3) of the Ontario Building Code at the Westminister Cemetery Mausoleum, 3850 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, on the condition that: a) Signage is provided within the subject building, indicating the location of the available washrooms. 8. Reasons i) There is no dedicated space for entombment services to be conducted within the subject building, thereby reducing the likelihood of large funerary services, which may necessitate the need for washroom facilities. ii) iii) The Applicant is proposing an addition to an existing building, which currently does not have a sanitary drainage system. There are water closets provided in an existing mausoleum, which is also located on this cemetery property.

5 Dated at Toronto this 28th day in the month of August in the year 2003 for application number Tony Chow, Vice-Chair Robert De Berardis Gary Burtch