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 (1) of Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Allen Hovey, owner, to determine whether the asconstructed guardrail, consisting of metal pickets with decorative elements at their mid-points, around the main stairs in a one storey, Group C building provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Building Code at 738 Moore Avenue, City of Thunder Bay, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Allen Hovey Owner Thunder Bay, ON Jim Buie Chief Building Official City of Thunder Bay Len King, Vice-Chair Ed Link Rick Florio Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING June 7, 2005 DATE OF RULING June 7, 2005 APPEARANCES Marianne Thompson Colonial Elegance Inc. Montreal, Quebec - and - Michael Lio Executive Director Ontario Railing Manufacturers Association Agents for the Applicant Warren Johnson Manager, Inspections City of Thunder Bay Agent 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 deficiencies at 738 Moore Avenue, City of Thunder Bay, Ontario. The subject building is a 1 storey Group C residential dwelling occupying a building area of 135 m 2. The house is built using combustible construction materials and is not equipped with a sprinkler system, fire alarm system or a standpipe and hose system. The construction in dispute involves the design of the guard that has been installed around the landing of the main stair leading to the basement. The guard in question is constructed using 89 mm by 89 mm (3 ½ in by 3 ½ in) hemlock posts and a 94 mm (2 ½ in) wide oak handrail. The posts are bolted to the rim-joists. The pickets consist of wrought iron panels with decorative elements near the top and at the mid-point of the centre picket. Each wrought iron panel is screwed to the bottom of the handrail and to the floor. The panels measure 153 mm (6 in) in width and are constructed using 9.53 mm by 9.53 mm (⅜ in by ⅜ in) wrought iron pickets. Each panel consists of three pickets set approximately 76.2 mm (3 in) apart from the adjacent picket. The middle picket of the panel includes the first ornamental feature, located at approximately 386 mm above the walking surface. The birdcage is described as a twisted basket consisting of four 4.76 mm by 4.76 mm ( 3 / 16 in by 3 / 16 in) rods. The clearance between the birdcage and the adjacent picket is 39.7 mm (1 ½ in). The second ornamental feature, located at approximately 730 mm above the walking surface, consists of a horizontal bar with ornamental scrollwork connecting the two outer pickets of the panel. The Applicant contends that the as-installed guard does not facilitate climbing while the Respondent is of the opinion that the inclusion of two design features within the 800 mm nonclimbing zone does facilitate climbing. The issue at dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent is whether the as-installed guard provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Design to Prevent Climbing (See Appendix A) (1) Guards required by Article and serving buildings of residential occupancy shall be designed so that no member, attachment or opening located between 100 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface protected by the guard will facilitate climbing. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant, Marianne Thompson, submitted that Colonial Elegance is headquartered in Montreal and is part of the Ontario Railing Manufacturers Association (ORMA). ORMA represents over 40 railing companies from across Ontario representing the large majority of railing installations in the province.

3 - 3 - She stated that Colonial Elegance would not manufacture a product that had any liability associated with it and noted that the company has been manufacturing and selling staircase components to home improvement retailers for 30 years. She assured the Commission that there has never been an issue with any of their interior guards. The Agent for the Applicant, Michael Lio, explained the difficulties faced by railing manufacturers across the province due to the inconsistency in interpreting the Building Code with respect to the issue of climbability. In his opinion the Building Code needs to be revised so as to address this inconsistency. The Agent referred to Sentence (1) and stated that the intent of this Sentence is not to prevent climbing but rather to not invite climbing. He then referred to BCC Ruling which he felt was instructive as to how the Commission interpreted the Building Code. He referenced an analysis of the abilities of children at different ages and suggested that the prime concern would be with respect to children between the ages of 2 and 3 years. It was his submission that children younger than 2 years would not have the physical strength or coordination to climb up and over the guard and that older children, between the ages of 3 and 4 years, would possess better judgement and have an understanding of the danger associated with climbing the guard. In examining the design of the guard in question, the Agent stated that the protruding elements do not create a ladder effect and indicated that the decorative scrollwork at the top of the railing does not provide enough space for a toehold. He noted that the birdcage element is positioned on the picket in such a way that the surface of the birdcage is angled downward approximately 55 o and is approximately 40 mm from the adjacent picket. It is his belief that as a result of the angling of the birdcage, a child would not be able to gain a toe hold on this element. He demonstrated using the guard in question that a toddler s shoe does not fit between the vertical pickets. Furthermore, he stated that in order for the birdcage to be used as a toehold the child s leg would have to be angled to an uncomfortable, if not impossible, degree. He also offered that he had reviewed literature on child injuries in the home and cited that garage doors and cabinetry cause more injuries than guards. The Agent admitted that the shoe used in his demonstration is not the standard to which guards should be held. He referred to the proposed code amendment regarding guards and stated that a 45 mm distance between pickets is acceptable. He further alleged that the guard in question meets all of the requirements contained in the proposed code amendment. In summation, the Agent contended that this guard does not facilitate climbing nor does it provide a toehold for children between the ages of 2 and 3 years. He further claimed that a ladder effect is not present in this guard. He asked the Commission to consider that this guard has been installed in many locations, over the past 5 years, without incidence. He reiterated his opinion that the design of this guard does not facilitate climbing and therefore complies with the intent of the Code. 4. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that the two decorative elements in the design of this guard make the guard climbable. In his opinion, the birdcage located at the midpoint of the middle picket is spaced at 39.7 mm from the adjacent picket and creates a toehold which would facilitate climbing. He stated that the ornamental scrollwork, located within the 800 mm restricted area at the top of the guard, creates a handhold and further facilitates climbing. The Respondent maintained that the guard is climbable and pointed to two areas of concern with respect to this guard. The birdcage, located at a height of 386 mm above the floor, is less than

4 mm from the adjacent picket and the ornamental scrollwork located at the top of the guard. The combination of these two elements, in the opinion of the Respondent, presents a toehold and a handhold, which facilitate climbing. In summary, the Respondent contended that the guard does facilitate climbing and as such, does not meet the requirements set out in Sentence (1). 5. Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed guardrail, consisting of metal pickets with decorative elements at their mid-points, around the main stairs in a one storey, Group C building does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Building Code at 738 Moore Avenue, City of Thunder Bay, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) The ornamental birdcage, located approximately 386 mm above the floor or walking surface and within 40 mm from the adjacent baluster, provides a toehold, which facilitates climbing. ii) The ornamental scrollwork, situated at 750 mm above the floor, is located within the restricted 100 mm 900 mm area above the floor or walking surface. This design feature provides a handhold, which facilitates climbing.

5 - 5 - Dated at Toronto this 7 th day in the month of June in the year 2005 for application number Len King, Vice-Chair Ed Link Rick Florio