BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
|
|
- Arron Patterson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
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 (4) and Article 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 John Kuiack, Wasko Development, for the resolution of a dispute with Rocky Cerminara, Chief Building Official, City of London, to determine whether the as-built stair guard constructed to a height of mm as measured vertically above the stair nosings and built in accordance with Sentence (4) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) complies with the intent of OBC Article to reduce the likelihood of climbing, and whether the same guard with semi-circular elements measured at mm above the stair nosings provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the OBC at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE John Kuiack Wasko Development London, Ontario Rocky Cerminara Chief Building Official City of London Bryan Whitehead, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING May 1, 2003 DATE OF RULING May 1, 2003 APPEARANCES Carl Roes Roes Stair Co. Inc. Mt. Brydges, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Dave Howe (Via Teleconference) Manager of Inspections City of London Designate for the Respondent
2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant John Kuiack, Wasko Development, has received an order to comply under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies with respect to the construction of a dwelling located at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a Group C single detached dwelling. The structure is two storeys in building height and approximately 472 m 2 in building area. The construction in dispute involves the guard serving the interior stairs. The as-installed guard consists of a wood top rail and wrought iron vertical members (hereafter pickets). The pickets have been designed into groups of three, with each group having a decorative cross member towards the upper portion of the guard system. A curved portion, which extends to the wood top rail, has been attached above each horizontal member; thereby, creating a semi-circular/crescent design. The horizontal members are not continuous and do not extend from one group of pickets to the next. Each picket also has a small decorative protrusion at its midpoint. The as-installed guard at dispute, when measured vertically from a line drawn through the outside edges of the stair nosings to the top of the handrail, extends to a height of mm. The semicircular/crescent element, as described above, extends to a height of mm when measured vertically from the tread of the stair. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the as-built stair guard constructed to a height of mm as measured vertically above the stair nosings and built in accordance with Sentence (4) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) complies with the intent of OBC Article to reduce the likelihood of climbing, and whether the same guard with semi-circular elements measured at mm above the stair nosings provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of the OBC at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, City of London, Ontario. Sentence (4) of the OBC outlines the height requirements for guards serving stairs located within dwelling units. According to this provision, stairs within dwelling units and stairs serving not more than one dwelling unit shall be not less than 800 mm (2 ft 7 in) measured vertically to the top of the guard from a line drawn through the outside edges of stair nosings. Since the guard in dispute measures to a height of mm, the as-installed guard has been built in accordance with Sentence (4) of the OBC. The Appendix to Article (A ), while not an official part of the Code, offers a rationale as to the intent of this Code provision, because it explains how minimum height requirements have been established for guards. It states that guard heights are based on the waist heights of average persons; however, they are generally lower in dwelling units because the occupants become familiar with the potential hazards and, more so, because jostling under crowded conditions are less likely to arise in residential settings.
3 -3- Sentence (1) stipulates that required guards, which serve buildings of residential occupancy, must be designed in such a way so as not to facilitate climbing between 100 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface of the area the guard is protecting. This requirement provides for a non-climbable zone of 800 mm. The 800 mm protected region, beginning 100 mm above the walking surface, is intended to limit the likelihood that a picket, decorative element, or horizontal/near horizontal member, would produce a ladder effect, which could lead to a child climbing over the guard. In the disputed construction, both the handrail of the guard, and the semi-circular/crescent members, are located within non-climbable zone (at heights of mm and mm respectively). It should be noted that the issue of the 800 mm protective zone was addressed by a previous decision at the Building Code Commission (Ruling No ), which pertained to the same as-installed guard system in question here. In this previous decision, the Commission ruled that the 800 mm nonclimbable zone, in this particular instance, could be measured directly from the level of the walking surface to a total height of 800 mm. At dispute, therefore, in the case at hand is whether the handrail portion of the guard, located at mm above the walking surface of the stair nosings as permitted by Sentence (4) of the OBC, complies with Sentence (1) requiring guard design to prevent climbing, even though the total guard height is considerably less than 900 mm. In other word, can a handrail as part of a guard serving a stair be located within the non-climbable zone stipulated in Sentence (1) and still meet the intent of that provision? Also at dispute is whether the semi-circular/crescent element may facilitate climbing when considering Article and its zone of non-climbability. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Sentence Height of Guards (4) Guards for stairs within dwelling units and stairs serving not more than one dwelling unit shall be not less than 800 mm (2 ft 7 in) measured vertically above a line drawn through the outside edges of stair nosings, and not less than 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) above landings. (See Appendix A) Article Design to Prevent Climbing (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 (4 in) and 900 mm (2 ft 11 in) above the floor or walking surface protected by the guard will facilitate climbing. (See Appendix A) 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant began by submitting that there seems to be a contradiction between Sentence (4) and Sentence (1) of the Code. He argued that Sentence (4) requires that the height of a guard measures no less than 800 mm when measuring vertically from above a line drawn through the outside edges of stair nosing; whereas, Sentence (1) stipulates that a guard must be designed in such a way so as not to facilitate climbing between 100 mm and 900 mm above the floor or walking surface of the area the guard is protecting. The Agent argued that when considering these two Sentences in conjunction, it appears that Sentence (4) requires a guard to be designed
4 -4- to a height of 800 mm, while Sentence (1) requires a non-climbable zone that extends to a height of 900 mm, which is 100 mm above the height of the guard required by Sentence (4). The Agent stated that, in this opinion, these two provisions of the Code are clearly at odds with one another. The Agent continued by asking the Commission whether they would consider the notion of a sliding non-climbable zone downwards to the stair nosing, which would maintain the integrity of the 800 mm non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence (4). In this case, the Agent argued that the nonclimbable zone should be measured from the imaginary line that runs through the stair nosings to a height of 800 mm, instead of being measured from 100 mm above the tread of the stair to a height of 900 mm. The Agent continued by stating that the integrity of the 800 mm non-climbable zone would still be maintained; however, it would be shifted slightly downwards. If measured in this manner, the handrail of the guard in dispute, which is mm in height when measuring vertically above a line drawn through the outside edges of the stair nosing, would be located 19.2 mm above the non-climbable zone and therefore, would be considered in compliance. Shifting the non-climbable zone in this manner, however, would not address the semi-circular/crescent elements, as these are located mm above the walking surface of the tread and therefore situated in the zone of non-climbability. In order to address this issue, the Agent advised the Commission to consider the overall climbability of the guard at dispute. As per the Agent s opinion, the guard does not pose a ladder effect and, therefore, is not very tempting for a child to climb over. In summary, the Agent for the Applicant submitted that clearly the Code poses a contradiction with respect to the provisions outlined for residential guard design. As a result, he argued that the Commission should consider concessions with respect to the determination of the non-climbable zone. Finally, the Agent advised that it is both his opinion, and the opinion of the Applicant, that the guard in dispute does not provide a hazard with respect to child climbing. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that he had two questions that he wanted the Commission to consider. The first of which was whether the semi-circular/crescent element of the guard in dispute poses a hazard with respect to child climbing. The second question, which was intended for the purposes of clarity, pertained to the Commission s opinion with respect to the 800 mm non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence (1) of the Code and whether it can shifted up or down. The Designate continued by stating that it is the position of the City of London s Building Division that the interior guard in dispute does not comply with Sentence (1) - Design to Prevent Climbing. In his opinion, the semi-circular/crescent element, which is located mm above the tread of the stair, could facilitate climbing, because it is located within the non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence (1) of the OBC. Furthermore, the Designate added that Sentence (4) permits a guard on a stair to be no more than 800 mm in height. When considering Sentence (1), which stipulates that a guard shall be designed so that no member, attachment, or opening, be located between 100 mm and 900 mm above the walking surface the top of the handrail for the guard in dispute is clearly within the non-climbable zone at a height of mm. As per the Designate, this again presents a climbable element; thereby, increasing the probability of hazards resulting from the as-installed guard. In summary, the Designate stated that his position is clear. He maintained that it is the opinion of the City of London s Building Division that the both the semi-circular element and the handrail of the guard
5 -5- in dispute could facilitate child climbing, as both are located within the non-climbable zone outlined in Sentence (1) of the Code. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-built stair guard constructed to a height of mm, as measured vertically above the stair nosings, and built in accordance with OBC Sentence (4) complies with the intent of Article to reduce the likelihood of climbing at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, London, Ontario. It is also the decision of the Building Code Commission that the same guard with semi-circular elements measured at mm above the stair nosings does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Article of the OBC at 99 Fitzwilliam Boulevard, London, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) In the BCC s view, the zone of non-climbability between 100 and 900 mm above the walking surface as set out in Article does not need to be fixed at this height and may be moved slightly upwards or downwards as long as the intent of the provision is maintained, i.e., the integrity of the 800 mm zone of non-climbability is not compromised. In the present instance, the Commission holds that the climbable zone can be shifted down to the imaginary line that runs through the stair nosings and therefore the handrail, constructed as part of the subject OBC (4) compliant guard, and measured at mm above the stair nosings is considered to comply with the intent of Article ii) iii) iv) The guard serving a stair, constructed to a height of mm, meets and surpasses the prescriptive requirements of OBC Sentence (4), which mandates a minimum height of 800 mm for such guards. Notwithstanding the above, the subject guard does however contain certain semi-circular elements, the bottom of which are measured at mm above the stair nosing. In the BCC s view, these elements represent a possible climbing hazard and are located almost wholly within the 800 mm zone of non-climbability. No compensatory measures were offered to mitigate the potential climbing hazard presented by the semi-circular elements.
6 -6- Dated at Toronto this 1st day in the month of May in the year 2003 for application number Bryan Whitehead, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Donald Pratt
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 10-21-1257 Application No. B-2010-13 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 with Articles 9.8.8.3.
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 05-22-1036 Application No. 2005-18 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 9.8.8.5.(1)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 01-38-831 Application # 2001-47 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 3.3.1.17.(1) of Regulation 403, as amended
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 00-54-786 Application No. 2000-66 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 9.8.8.8., 4.1.10.1. and Sentence 9.8.2.1.(1)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-35-890 Application No. 2002-22 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 Articles 3.4.3.6. and
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 03-40-938 Application No. 2003-40 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 3.1.5.1. of
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-21-876 Application No. 2002-17 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 3.2.2.24. and
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-28-883 Application No. 2002-25 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 3.2.2.67.(2)(c)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 04-27-982 Application No. 2004-19 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 9.8.8.8.(2)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-38-893 Application No. 2002-33 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 Clause 3.3.4.4.(1)(a)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 04-32-987 Application No. 2004-24 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 Clause 3.3.2.1.(1)(c)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling # 01-12-805 Application # 2000-83 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 9.26.5.1. and 9.26.5.2. of Regulation
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 07-42-1171 Application No. B-2007-37 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 3.4.6.5.(8)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 03-54-952 Application No. 2003-64 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 6.2.3.2. of
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 01-22-815 Application # 2001-14 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24 (1) of the Building Code Act, 1992. AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 3.3.1.8. and 3.4.3.6. of Regulation
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-13-868 Application No. 2002-11 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 Articles 3.2.2.9. and
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-11-866 Application No. 2002-06 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 Sentences 3.1.5.5.(1),
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 05-18-1032 Application No. 2005-11 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 in Article 9.10.14.11.
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-05-860 Application No. 2001-82 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 4.1.10.8. of
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 03-07-905 Application No. 2002-51 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 3.2.2.35.(4)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-04-859 Application No. 2001-81 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 Sentences 3.2.3.7.(7)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-22-877 Application No. 2002-19 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 Sentences 3.3.1.2.(3),
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
- 1 - Ruling No. 07-31-1160 Application No. 2007-15 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 Articles 8.7.3.2.
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 09-14-1226 Application No. B-2009-15 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 with Clause 9.25.2.2.(1)(g)
More informationThe Homeowner s Building Application Checklist for Constructing a Residential Sundeck
This checklist provides homeowners a summary of the Building Permit submission requirements for constructing a residential sundeck. Regardless of the deck s walking surface area, if the deck is adjacent
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 05-08-1022 Application No. 2005-03 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 in Articles 9.10.14.1.
More informationTOWN OF BRADFORD WEST GWILLIMBURY DECK PACKAGE
GWILLIMBURY DECK PACKAGE Property Address: Deck Size: Width: Length: Material: Deck Height: Ground to top of decking: Stair Steps (pg. 5): Rise: Run: Decking: Size: Material: Guard: Height: Type: 1. Cantilevered
More informationPROPOSED CHANGE TO THE 2012 BUILDING CODE O. REG. 332/12 AS AMENDED
Ministry of Municipal Affairs PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE 2012 BUILDING CODE O. REG. 332/12 AS AMENDED CHANGE NUMBER: SOURCE: B-03-04-10 Ontario-NBC CODE REFERENCE: Division B / 3.4.6.8. Division B / 3.3.1.13.
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 07-39-1168 Application No. 2007-35 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 Articles 9.10.12.3.
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 03-32-930 Application No. 2003-31 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 Articles 5.1.4.2. and
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 03-27-925 Application No. 2003-14 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 Articles 9.14.2.1.,
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 08-06-1180 Application No. B- 2007-49 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 7.4.8.2.,
More informationSchedule A. a representative appointed from among persons nominated by the Nova Scotia Accessibility Advisory Board.
Schedule A Amendment to the Nova Scotia Building Code Regulations made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs under Section 4 of Chapter 46 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, 1989, the Building Code
More informationCode Technology Committee Area of Study Climbable Guards
Code Technology Committee Area of Study Climbable Guards 2009/2012 Cycle Code changes related to the CTC area of study noted above The following are code changes related to the CTC Climbable Guards Area
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 08-12-1186 Application No. 2008-03 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 3.6.3.1.(2)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 03-34-932 Application No. 2003-41 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 3.7.4.1.(3)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 09-06-1218 Application No. B-2009-04 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 with Article 3.1.9.1.
More informationCity of of Dauphin WOOD DECKS. Zoning and construction requirements for non-sheltered wood decks for residential dwellings.
City of of Dauphin WOOD DECKS Zoning and construction requirements for non-sheltered wood decks for residential dwellings. General Information.3-6 Zoning..7 Foundations..8-10 Structural 11-14 Design..15-18
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 05-07-1021 Application No. 2005-02 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 3.2.2.67.,
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 10-37-1273 Application No. B-2010-33 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 9.7.2.1.(1)(a)
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 09-17-1229 Application No. 2009-10 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 with Article 9.19.1.1.
More informationWood Decks Zoning and construction requirements for open non-sheltered wood decks for residential dwellings
PLANNING, PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Wood Decks Zoning and construction requirements for open non-sheltered wood decks for residential dwellings November 2017 contents General Information... 3
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 10-35-1271 Application No. B-2010-26 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 4.3.4.3.
More informationINTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL (ICC) Code Technology Committee (CTC) FINAL REPORT OF THE CTC AREA OF STUDY CLIMBABLE GUARDS
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL (ICC) Code Technology Committee (CTC) FINAL REPORT OF THE CTC AREA OF STUDY CLIMBABLE GUARDS May 21, 2008 Four Points Sheraton BWI Airport Baltimore, Maryland In accordance with
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 02-19-874 Application No. 2002-16 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 11.3.1.1. of
More informationIntroduction 2 The Guidance Existing Buildings Technical Specifications Materials and Workmanship Interpretation. Part K : The Requirement 3
Contents Page Introduction 2 The Guidance Existing Buildings Technical Specifications Materials and Workmanship Interpretation Part K : The Requirement 3 Section 1 STAIRWAYS, LADDERS AND RAMPS 4 Introduction
More informationWood Decks. Zoning and Construction requirements for open non-sheltered wood decks for residential dwellings.
Wood Decks Zoning and Construction requirements for open non-sheltered wood decks for residential dwellings. General Information 3 Zoning 7 Foundations 8 Structural 11 Design 16 Compliance 20 NOTE The
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 08-05-1179 Application No. B-2007-48 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 6.2.1.4.
More informationStairs have many potential violations this Newsletter is Part 1 of two parts.
Stairs have many potential violations this Newsletter is Part 1 of two parts. Violation 1 : Risers do not meet requirements: riser heights too high/low; too much variation between riser heights; risers
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 05-15-1029 Application No. 2005-07 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 1.1.3.2. of
More informationHIA Guide to the Building Code of Australia - Housing Provisions
HIA Guide to the Building Code of Australia - Housing Provisions Here is an extract from the HIA Guide to the Building Code Of Australia relating to staircases. This handy guide, published by HIA is designed
More informationAppendix GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNICAL INFORMATION BUILDING CODES INDEX
Appendix GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNICAL INFORMATION BUILDING CODES INDEX Building Codes Building Codes Prior to using any railing products, it is incumbent on designers, fabricators and installers to make
More informationWood Decks. Please call for further information. Municipality of Roblin Planning Department st Ave. NW Roblin, Manitoba R0L 1P0
Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this pamphlet. However, in case of a discrepancy between this pamphlet and the respective By-laws, the By-law will take
More informationFall prevention through windows: barriers and balustrades (Nat)
Fall prevention through windows: barriers and balustrades (Nat) BCA Volume Two Housing Provisions has been amended under BCA 2009 to require a balustrade or other barrier where it is possible for a person
More informationCode Technology Committee Area of Study Climbable Guards
Code Technology Committee Area of Study Climbable Guards 2007/2008 Cycle Code changes related to the CTC area of study noted above The following are code changes related to the CTC Climbable Guards Area
More informationBUILDING CODE VARIANCE
BUILDING CODE VARIANCE April 2009 06-BCV-011-R1 Page 1 of 8 DISCUSSION MULTI-LEVEL STORAGE RACKING SYSTEMS The Alberta Building Code 2006 contains no specific requirements for multi-level storage racking
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 08-24-1198 Application No. 2008-21 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 with Sentence 9.19.1.1.(1)
More informationAcceptable Solution F4/AS1
1.0 Barriers in Buildings 1.1 Barrier heights 1.1.1 Minimum barrier heights are given in Table 1. COMMENT: Refer to NZBC Clause D1 for handrails on stairs. Handrails can be constructed as an integral part
More informationCITY OF OCEANSIDE. Single Family Dwelling Stairways/Guards. Informational Bulletin
Single Family Dwelling Stairways/Guards Informational Bulletin Width Stairways shall not be less than 36 inches wide. The handrail may enter a maximum of 4 1/2 inches into this dimension. (2016 CRC R311.7.1
More informationBUILDING CODE COMMISSION
Ruling No. 05-26-1040 Application No. 2005-17 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 4.1.1.3.(1)
More informationDear Customer. Section Old F4 January 2017 Amendment 2. Remove title page and document history page 1-2B
Dear Customer Please find enclosed Amendment 2, effective 1 January 2017, to the Acceptable Solution and Verification Method for Clause F4 Safety from Falling of the New Zealand Building Code. The previous
More informationGlass Panels in Balcony Guards Status Update
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED Glass Panels in Balcony Guards Status Update Date: May 31, 2012 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Planning and Growth Management Committee Chief Building Official and Executive
More informationTypical Deck Details. Shenandoah County, Virginia. Based on the 2012 International Residential Code
Shenandoah County, Virginia Typical Deck Details Based on the 2012 International Residential Code The design details in this document apply to residential decks only. Framing requirements are limited to
More informationDescription Accessibility Standards. AODA OBC 2015 Ramps
Ramps OBC Ammendments are related to the following accessibility standards: The ramp must have a minimum clear width of 900 mm. The ramp must have a clear height that provides a minimum Tactile Attention
More informationFor New Zealand Building Code Clause F4 Safety from Falling
Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods Prepared by by the the Ministry of of Business, Innovation and and Employment For New Zealand Building Code Clause F4 Safety from Falling F4 Status of Verification
More information2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE
DOCUMENTATION 2006 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE Code Change No: RB33-06/07 Original Proposal Sections: R301.1.1, Chapter 43; IBC 2301.2, Chapter 35 THIS PROPOSAL IS ON THE AGENDA OF THE IRC BUILDING/ENERGY
More informationRESIDENTIAL STAIRWAYS, HANDRAILS,
City Of Austin 500 Fourth Avenue N.E. Austin, Minnesota 55912-3773 Building Department 507-437-9950 Fax 507-437-7101 RESIDENTIAL STAIRWAYS, HANDRAILS, *A Building permit is required for any alteration
More informationRegarding the compliance of a ground floor landing to a set of stairs in a residential unit at 21 Commercial Street, Takaka
Determination 2017/081 Regarding the compliance of a ground floor landing to a set of stairs in a residential unit at 21 Commercial Street, Takaka Summary This determination considers the compliance of
More informationApproved Document. Protection from falling, collision and impact. The Building Regulations 2010
The Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document K1 Stairs, ladders and ramps K2 Protection from falling K3 Vehicle barriers and loading bays K4 Protection from collision with open windows, skylights and
More informationSTAIRWAYS, HANDRAILS, AND GUARDRAILS (RESIDENTIAL)
01/25/08 STAIRWAYS, HANDRAILS, AND GUARDRAILS (RESIDENTIAL) City of Austin International Residential Code: 500 Fourth Avenue NE R314.1 Width. Stairways shall not be less than 36 in clear width at all points
More information2. Plot plan showing deck scaled with stairs. 3. Building Permit Application signed by owner or licensed contractor and fee paid.
DECK GUIDELINES All information in this handout pertains to 1 and 2 family residential decks. The City of Derby is offering this informational handout as representative of typical issues/questions that
More informationBENZIE COUNTY BUILDING SAFETY and CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT 448 Court Place, Beulah, Michigan Ph Fax.
BENZIE COUNTY BUILDING SAFETY and CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT 448 Court Place, Beulah, Michigan 49617 Ph. 231-882-9673 Fax. 231-882-0033 DECK SPEC INFORMATION Footing Inspections: Dig footing to required
More information2012 Ontario Building Code Requirements for New Construction. Bradford West Gwillimbury Building Division March 5, 2012
2012 Ontario Building Code Requirements for New Construction Bradford West Gwillimbury Building Division March 5, 2012 1 Ontario Building Code changes Applicable to permits applied for after December 31,
More informationLINCOLN COUNTY REQUIRED INSPECTIONS (Last updated August 23, 2017)
LINCOLN COUNTY REQUIRED INSPECTIONS (Last updated August 23, 2017) It is the responsibility of the permit applicant to notify the building inspector when the work is ready for inspection. To request an
More information2015 BUILDING CODES APPENDIX Q TINY HOUSES. Routt County Regional Building Department
2015 BUILDING CODES APPENDIX Q TINY HOUSES Routt County Regional Building Department Overview Building Permitting Flow Chart Tiny Houses Appendix Q Definitions Size and Space Requirements Stairs/Ladder/Lofts/Guards
More informationDeck Design Guide. 67 Sharp Road, Brighton, Ontario P.O. Box 189 K0K 1H0 Tel: Fax: Web:
Deck Design Guide The Municipality of Brighton 67 Sharp Road, Brighton, Ontario P.O. Box 189 K0K 1H0 Tel: 613-475-1162 Fax: 613-475-3453 Web: www.brighton.ca This guide is for informational purposes only.
More informationCompliance of barriers to a bridge located on a former film set at 501 Buckland Road, Matamata
Determination 2012/025 Compliance of barriers to a bridge located on a former film set at 501 Buckland Road, Matamata 1. The matter to be determined 1.1 This is a Determination under Part 3 Subpart 1 of
More informationBarrette Outdoor Living. 135 Steelmanville Road Egg Harbor Township, NJ USA, 08234
PERFORMANCE EVALUTAION OF BARRETTE OUTDOOR LIVING SPARTAN RAIL SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NBCC 2010 / OBC 2012 REQUIREMENTS FOR LOADS ON GUARDS AND RAILINGS Report to: Barrette Outdoor Living. 135 Steelmanville
More informationDECK CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
DECK CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Should you have any questions after reading the following information, please call the Building Inspection Department at 651-439-4439 to discuss the topics of concern. We
More informationOffice of the Fire Commissioner Building and Fire Safety Section
Office of the Fire Commissioner Building and Fire Safety Section Attached or Detached Decks Note: This is a sample of what is required for attached or detached deck building permit applications. Please
More informationATI Evaluation Service A Division of Architectural Testing Certification Services
ATI Evaluation Service A Division of Architectural Testing Certification Services Subject to Renewal: 04/08/2014 Issued: 04/08/2013 Visit www.ati-es.com for current status Revision: 11/11/2013 Page 1 of
More informationSLEEVE-IT SD1. Technical Summary
Strata Systems, Inc. 1831 N. Park Avenue Burlington, NC 27217 Phone: (770) 888-6688 Fax: (770) 888-6680 www.geogrid.com SLEEVE-IT SD1 Technical Summary 2018 INTRODUCTION Sleeve-It SD-1 is a pre-engineered
More informationARCHIVED. Compliance Document for New Zealand Building Code Clause F4 Safety from Falling Second Edition
Compliance Document for New Zealand Building Code Clause F4 Safety from Falling Second Edition Prepared by the Department of Building and Housing This Compliance Document is prepared by the Department
More information311.7 Stairways Width Headroom. Exception: Walkline Stair treads and risers Tread depth.
311.7 Stairways. 311.7.1 Width. Stairways shall not be less than 36 inches (914 mm) in clear width at all points above the permitted handrail height and below the required headroom height. Handrails shall
More informationTypical Deck Details. Albemarle County, Virginia. Based on the 2012 Virginia Residential Code
Albemarle County, Virginia Typical Deck Details Based on the 2012 Virginia Residential Code The design details in this document apply to residential decks only. Framing requirements are limited to single
More informationCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PEMBROKE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PEMBROKE BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 PEMBROKE STREET EAST PEMBROKE ON K8A 3J5 PHONE 613-735-6821 x1304 FAX 613-735-3660 www.pembroke.ca DECK GUIDELINES All decks require a building
More informationChapter WAC Construction Work
Chapter 296-155 WAC - Page 296-155-475 Scope and application. 1 296-155-47501 Definitions applicable to this part. 1 296-155-476 General requirements. 2 296-155-477. 2, Page i PART J STAIRWAYS WAC 296-155-475
More informationRationale Behind the Provisions of ASTM F 2200 & Illustration Guidelines Based on the Provisions of ASTM F 2200
Rationale Behind the Provisions of ASTM F 2200 & Illustration Guidelines Based on the Provisions of ASTM F 2200 (AFA Reference #G-125A) (NOMMA Reference #325-003-2000) DASMA, in cooperation with the American
More informationRationale Behind the Provisions of ASTM F 2200 & Illustration Guidelines Based on the Provisions of ASTM F 2200
Rationale Behind the Provisions of ASTM F 2200 & Illustration Guidelines Based on the Provisions of ASTM F 2200 (AFA Reference #G-125A) (NOMMA Reference #325-003-2000) DASMA, in cooperation with the American
More informationTypical Deck Details. Shenandoah County, Virginia. Based on the 2012 Virginia Residential Code
Shenandoah County, Virginia Typical Deck Details Based on the 2012 Virginia Residential Code The design details in this document apply to residential decks only. Framing requirements are limited to single
More informationTOWN OF PERINTON 1350 TURK HILL ROAD. FAIRPORT, NEW YORK (585) , Fax: (585) ,
BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR BASEMENT REMODELING 1. Provide two copies of a detailed floor plan and elevation drawing, see sample drawings on page 9 and 10. Include materials, sizes, supports, heating,
More informationDesign Aid for Barrier-Free Accessibility in Existing Buildings
Design Aid for Barrier-Free Accessibility in Existing Buildings July 9, 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. References 2 3. Access to the Building 2.1 Site Accessibility 2 4. Building Access 3.1
More informationGuards in Buildings - The Canadian Challenge. Greg Hildebrand, C.E.T., M.Sc.(Eng) Petr Vegh, Ph.D., P.Eng exp Services Inc.
Guards in Buildings - The Canadian Challenge Greg Hildebrand, C.E.T., M.Sc.(Eng) Petr Vegh, Ph.D., P.Eng exp Services Inc. The Problem An increased number of balcony guard rail failures over the past number
More informationCode Compliance Research Report CCRR-0185
Code Compliance Research Report CCRR-0185 Issue Date: 12-09-2016 Renewal Date: 12-10-2017 Revision Date: 04-20-2017 DIVISION: 06 00 00 WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES Section: 06 50 00 Structural Plastics
More informationEGRESS AZMIR SULTANA NICOLAS MIMU SAKUMA EDWIN VEGA CHAMORRO
EGRESS AZMIR SULTANA NICOLAS CHAMORRO MIMU SAKUMA EDWIN VEGA DEFINITIONS NC ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility
More informationPRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE METHOD
CHAPTER PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE METHOD 3 SECTION 301 GENERAL 301.2 Building materials. Building materials shall comply with the requirements of this section. 301.2.1 Existing materials. Materials already
More informationVillage of Lombard Community Development Department/Building Division 255 E. Wilson Avenue Lombard, IL Tel: Fax:
Village of Lombard Community Development Department/Building Division 255 E. Wilson Avenue Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: 630-620-5750 Fax: 630-629-2374 Accessory Structures: Decks, Terraces, Gazebos, Porches,
More informationIntroduction. Products conforming with a European Council Directive. CE marked construction products. Other regulations
Introduction This Technical Booklet has been prepared by the Department of Finance and Personnel and provides for certain methods and standards of building which, if followed, will satisfy the requirements
More informationATI Evaluation Service A Division of Architectural Testing Certification Services
ATI Evaluation Service A Division of Architectural Testing Certification Services Subject to Renewal: 08/26/2012 Issued: 08/26/2011 Visit www.ati-es.com for current status Page 1 of 19 UFP Ventures II,
More information