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 Clauses (2)(c) and (d) and Sentence (8) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Frank Tozzi, Magna-MI Developments Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Shelly Switzer, Chief Building Official to determine whether the elevated floor assembly having an area of m 2 in a Group F, Division 2 building is considered to be a mezzanine which must comply with the provisions of Clauses (2)(c) and (d) or whether it can be considered a service platform in conformance with the provisions of Sentence (8) of the Ontario Building Code at the Modatek Facility, 400 Chisholm Drive, Milton, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Frank Tozzi Magna-MI Developments Inc. Aurora, Ontario Shelly Switzer Chief Building Official Town of Milton Michael Steele, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING September 26, 2002 DATE OF RULING September 26, 2002 APPEARANCES Randy Brown Randal Brown & Associates Willowdale, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Shelly Switzer Chief Building Official Town of Milton The Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Frank Tozzi, Magna-MI Developments Inc., has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing an industrial building referred to as the Modatek Facility at 400 Chisholm Drive in the Town of Milton, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant is constructing a Group F, Division 2 industrial building, one storey in building height and 49,320 m 2 in building area. The structure is of noncombustible construction and will be equipped with sprinkler and fire alarm systems. The facility contains two office mezzanines and several service platforms. In addition, there is another raised floor assembly having an area of m 2, used to support electrical and mechanical equipment. This floor assembly has been constructed as a service platform. It is comprised of a poured concrete floor slab on steel decking and is supported on open-web steel joists which span steel beams that are supported on steel columns. The floor area is bounded on two sides by full size concrete block partition walls, a third side borders an exterior wall and the remaining side is provided with a Code compliant guard. The subject floor area is accessed by two stairways to provide the required egress from this level. The construction in dispute involves the subject floor assembly which, as constructed, does not provide a one hour fire-resistance rating. It is considered by the Applicant to be a platform rather than a mezzanine, for which the more restrictive standard would apply. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the subject intermediate floor assembly is to be considered a mezzanine, required to comply with the provisions of Clauses (2)(c) and (d) or whether it is a service platform in conformance with Sentence (8) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). Clauses (2)(c) and (d) outline the construction requirements for mezzanines in any sprinklered F2 building. Clause (c) specifies that mezzanines must have a fire-resistance rating of at least one hour and Clause (d) requires that loadbearing walls, columns and arches shall have a fire-resistance rating at least equal to that of the supported assembly. The subject floor assembly has been completed on the assumption that it is a service platform rather than a mezzanine, consequently, the required fireresistance rating has not been provided. Sentence (8) provides that mezzanines, elevated walkways and platforms in F2 or F3 major occupancies need not be considered storeys for the purposes of calculating building height provided that a) the building is comprised of noncombustible construction, b) the intermediate floor assembly is intended for periodic service and maintenance, and c) if intended to be occupied, the occupancy be limited to no more than four persons. The subject assembly is of noncombustible construction and is intended for use by no more than four persons to periodically service and maintain the equipment located in this area.

3 -3- The subject dispute, therefore, centres on whether the subject floor assembly should be considered a mezzanine, required to meet the construction parameters specific to this feature or whether, as constructed, the floor assembly represents a service platform, to be used to for the support of equipment and its periodic maintenance, as purported by the Applicant. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Group F, Division 2, Any Height, Any Area, Sprinklered (2) Except as permitted by Article , the building referred to in Sentence (1) shall be of noncombustible construction, and (c) mezzanines shall have a fire-resistance rating not less 1 h, and (d) loadbearing walls, columns and arches shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than that required for the supported assembly Exceptions in Determining Building Height (8) Mezzanines, elevated walkways and platforms in Group F, Division 2 or 3 major occupancies need not be considered as storeys in calculating building height provided (a) the building is of noncombustible construction, (b) except for Clause (c), the mezzanines, elevated walkways and platforms are intended solely for periodic service and maintenance, and (c) where they are intended to be occupied, no mezzanine, elevated walkway or platform shall have an occupant load more than 4 persons. 5. Applicant s Position The Applicant s Agent submitted that the floor assembly in dispute has been constructed in this F2 building, as a service platform, in conformance with the provisions of Sentence (8). As such, he advised that the area is to be used to house electrical and mechanical equipment and will be occupied by not more than four persons when servicing and maintenance is periodically required. He stated that no desks or other office furniture are to be located on this level, nor will the platform be used for storage of material. He emphasized that the area will only be occupied during maintenance operations. The Agent suggested that the dispute has arisen as a result of the fact that the Code does not define what a constitutes a platform. Essentially, it is considered to be raised flooring and the traditional application, he submitted, would find the area housing items such as humidifiers, fans, paint booths and other industrial equipment. The Building Code, he stated, does not address how much equipment can be located on a platform, nor does it restrict platform area or make reference to whether the assembly must be free standing or can form part of the structure of the building. In his opinion, given the intended use of the space, the concept of a platform applies to this floor assembly. In response to concerns in respect to the size of the assembly, the Agent submitted that the building itself is 50,000 m 2 and the subject platform has an area of m 2. It is used to support electrical and mechanical equipment, the nature of which may change from time to time. He emphasized that there is no plan to use the area for storage and that the added floor space simply takes the equipment off the main floor. The Agent suggested that, if in the Commission s view, the assembly would more closely meet the concept of a platform, they could replace the stairways with vertical ladders which are frequently employed to provide access to such platforms. He emphasized, however, that this proposal

4 -4- would also reduce the life safety of the area. In respect to the claim that this area should be considered to mezzanine, the Agent argued that, unlike the other mezzanines constructed in this building, this area is not intended to be occupied on a regular basis. This level, he reiterated, will only support equipment and, therefore, does not require the fire resistance rating associated with a mezzanine. He submitted that the Applicant would offer as a condition, to include the prohibition of storage in this area in the Fire Safety Plan for the building. In addition, they would also agree to restrict access to this level by gating the top of the stairs with a lock barrier. In summation, the Agent submitted that, despite its size and construction, the floor assembly in question serves the function of a service platform and, as constructed, meets the parameters of Sentence (8) of the OBC. 6. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that this issue is essentially one of semantics. The Code contains no definition for service platform, but the common usage of the term applies to walkways or free standing structural platforms, accessed by ladders, which serve to raise equipment off the floor level. A service platform, he argued, is provided for the service and maintenance of equipment. This proposal, however, creates a substantial amount of floor space for the subject equipment and, as such, this floor space should be considered to be a mezzanine. The term platform, he argued, simply does not apply to this floor assembly. In regard to the term mezzanine, the Respondent submitted that this is defined in the Code. A mezzanine is an intermediate floor assembly between the floor and ceiling of any room or storey and includes an interior balcony. In his opinion, this level meets the definition of mezzanine. The Respondent did not dispute the Application of Sentence (8) and agreed that this is not a storey. His argument was that it is a mezzanine and, consequently, should be provided with a one hour fireresistance rating as required by (2)(c) and (d). In summation, the Respondent reiterated that this area is not being used as a service platform. In addition, he expressed concern over potential future uses of the area and suggested that his main concern was with the protection of those working beneath the floor assembly. This area is constructed identically to the other mezzanines in the building, he argued, and should be treated as a mezzanine as well. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the elevated floor assembly having an area of m 2 in the subject F2 building is not considered to be a mezzanine which must comply with the provisions of Clauses (2)(c) and (d) and can be considered to be a service platform in conformance with the provisions of Sentence (8) of the Ontario Building Code at the Modatek Facility, 400 Chisholm Drive, Milton, Ontario subject to the following conditions: a) The Fire Safety Plan for the Modatek Facility is required to reflect that the use of the platform be restricted to the support and service of equipment with no storage for maintenance materials permitted.

5 -5- b) The platform is to be equipped with a locked barrier which will restrict access. c) Occupant load on the platform is to be restricted to a maximum of 4 persons. 8. Reasons i) The Ontario Building Code is not specific in respect to the definition of a service platform and the proposal, in our view, meets the intended uses and performance of a service platform. ii) With adherence to the conditions imposed the space in question can be considered to serve the function of a service platform.

6 -6- Dated at Toronto this 26 th day in the month of September in the year 2002 for application number Michael Steele, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt