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 Articles and 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 Brian McPhail, Principal, Eastern hospitality Builders Inc., for the resolution of a dispute with Lance Cumberbatch, Chief Building Official, Town of Ajax, to determine whether the as-constructed exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS), which has been used as the exterior cladding for a Group C occupancy building provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles and of the Ontario Building Code at the Super 8 Motel, 210 Westney Road, Ajax, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Brian McPhail, Principal Eastern Hospitality Builders Inc. Richmond Hill, Ontario Lance Cumberbatch Chief Building Official Town of Ajax Tony Chow, Chair Robert DeBerardis Gary Burtch Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING August 28, 2003 and April 26, 2004 DATE OF RULING July 5, 2004 APPEARANCES Allan Larden, Principal Larden Muniak Consulting Inc. And Sandro Soscia Soscia Engineering Ltd. Agents for the Applicant Robert Marshall, President Cedaridge Services Inc. Designate for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Brian McPhail, Principal, Eastern Hospitality Builders Inc., has received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and has been ordered to rectify certain alleged deficiencies at the Super 8 Motel, 210 Westney Road, Ajax, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a four storey motel having a Group C occupancy classification and a building area of 878 m 2. The structure is comprised of combustible wood frame construction and is equipped with both sprinkler and fire alarm systems. The construction in dispute involves the use of a face-sealed exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) as the exterior cladding of the building. The EIFS system used includes the DuROCK Expanded Polystyrene Exterior Wall System, complete with Tyvek Home Wrap on wood (OSB) sheathing, DuROCK Expanded Polystyrene, DuROCK prep coat with fibre mesh and DuROCK finish coat. Additional features include an expansion joint at the third floor level and a stucco reveal located at the second floor level. The expansion joint is to be sealed with backer rod and caulking. The DuROCK wall system has been approved for use in Part 9 buildings by Minister s Ruling No (CCMC Report No R). However, the subject building falls within the scope of Parts 3 and 5 of the Building Code because of its size and height. Specifically, the issue at dispute involves the design and installation of the cladding system which, the municipality purports, is not in keeping with approvals or the Building Code requirements. Rather, it has been suggested by the Respondent that the wall system is a hybrid of the approved EFIS system and OBC prescribed cladding. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the as-constructed EIFS cladding system provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles and of the Building Code. Article of the Code establishes requirements for resistance to deterioration. Sentence (1) mandates that, except as provided in Sentence (2), materials that are used to separate dissimilar environments shall be compatible with adjoining materials, and resistant to any mechanism of deterioration which would be reasonably expected giving consideration to the nature, function and exposure of the materials. Sentence (2) provides that such material compatibility and deterioration resistance is not required where it can be shown that incompatibility will not adversely affect either occupant health and safety, intended use of the building or the operation of building services. Article prescribes requirements for sealing and drainage. Sentence (1) mandates that materials, components, assemblies, joints and junctions that are exposed to precipitation be sealed to prevent ingress of precipitation or drained so that precipitation is directed to the exterior. Sentence (2) is an exception to Sentence (1) and provides that sealing or drainage is not required where it can be shown that its omission will not adversely affect either occupant health and safety, intended use of the building or the operation of building services.

3 -3-4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Article Resistance to Deterioration (1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), materials that comprise building components and assemblies that separate dissimilar environments shall be (a) compatible with adjoining materials, and (b) resistant to any mechanisms of deterioration which would be reasonably expected, given the nature, function and exposure of the materials. (2) Material compatibility and deterioration resistance are not required where it can be shown that incompatibility or uncontrolled deterioration will not adversely affect any of (a) the health or safety of building users, (b) the intended use of the building, or (c) the operation of building services. Article Sealing and Drainage (1) Except as provided in Sentence (2), materials, components, assemblies, joints in materials, junctions between components and junctions between assemblies exposed to precipitation shall be (a) sealed to prevent ingress of precipitation, or (b) drained to direct precipitation to the exterior. (2) Sealing or drainage are not required where it can be shown that the omission of sealing and drainage will not adversely affect any of (a) the health or safety of building users, (b) the intended use of the building, or (c) the operation of building services. 5. Applicant s Position Allan Larden, Agent for the Applicant outlined the history of the dispute and provided an overview of the system installed. In this regard he specified that Tyvek Home Wrap has been used over the wood frame construction. He noted that no drainage layer was provided. He submitted that the permit holder has retained a professional engineer, Soscia Engineering Ltd. (Soscia) to review the subject cladding system. Soscia has made a number of recommendations that would improve upon the as-constructed system and have been offered in attempt to satisfy the Town s concerns. The Agent noted that the municipality has also retained a consultant, R.J. Burnside & Associates Ltd. (Burnside & Associates) to review Soscia s report. The Town s concerns, however, have not been specifically elaborated rather, general discontent with the cladding system has been expressed in relation to the Code requirements. Many of these concerns are simply opinion based on what Burnside & Associates considers to be good practice. He noted that the Code requirements outlined in Articles and are objective-based rather than prescriptive in nature. In this regard, the Agent submitted that the as-constructed cladding system will meet the intent outlined in these sections. Sandro Soscia, Agent for the Applicant, advised that the subject building is a simple design. He noted that the cladding system has been in existence through one winter already and no problems have been reported. He submitted that the Tyvek wrap provides for a drainage system that will restrict water

4 -4- penetration into the wall assembly. He acknowledged that the system will require maintenance but conceded that a proposed maintenance program had not yet been presented to the owner. He reiterated, however, that performance of the cladding system, to date, has been adequate. He emphasised that his first report on the subject building made recommendations for improvements, however, the builder has yet to implement any of these recommendations pending the outcome the BCC hearing. At the conclusion of the initial hearing by the Commission, the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to further investigate the as-constructed wall system and offer recommendations for remediation to be considered by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Applicant s Agent prepared a report dated November 15, 2003, entitled Exterior Wall Investigation, Super 8 Motel, 210 Westney Road, Ajax, Ontario. The report offers an account of the destructive testing and visual examination that was conducted and provides a summary of findings. The Agent s findings conclude that (t)he sample openings confirmed that critical areas provide general conformance with Part 5 of the Ontario Building Code. However, some areas require remedial repairs. Soscia committed to reviewing all remedial work performed on the building. The report summary goes on to note that the success of the subject face-sealed system, with the additional provision for drainage provided by a layer of Tyvek, is dependent upon regular inspection and maintenance. Annual visual inspection performed by a qualified consultant was recommended by the Agent. At the second hearing the Agents acknowledged that the Respondent was unsatisfied that the proposed remediation would satisfy Building Code requirements but disputed their reasoning on a number of points, particularly with respect to protection for the window sills and the appropriateness of yearly inspections. In response to concerns expressed by Burnside & Associates the Applicant s Agent noted that nothing in Part 5 of the OBC prohibits the utilization of an exterior wall system which is largely face-sealed but also has some incidental drainage capability in certain components of the wall. The combination of such features, in his opinion, may reasonably be left to the professional designer s discretion. In response to the Commission s request for further information/test results that pertain specifically to the ability of the disputed wall system to resist deterioration and prevent the ingress of precipitation, the Agent for the Applicant provided a copy of the material testing results performed by DuROCK for their Exterior Insulation Finish Stucco System. In summation, the Agent for the Applicant submitted that, subject to the recommended remedial measures, the at-dispute wall system will perform at a level equivalent to that established by the relevant Building Code standards. 6. Respondent s Position Robert Marshall, Designate for the Respondent outlined the history of this application indicating the steps the municipality had undertaken upon learning that the building had not been constructed to plans. He explained that the Town had a number of outstanding concerns with the subject cladding. They were concerned that the building does not have a proper drainage system; the building does not have proper caulking nor proper face-sealing; and there is potential for water penetration. Put simply, the Respondent submitted that if the building is to be face-sealed then it should be sealed. If it is to be a drained type of cladding then it should have appropriate drainage. He noted that none of the recommendations made by Soscia in their original report have been undertaken. He further noted that, as Soscia was not involved with the project at the time of construction, they are not in a position to accurately describe how the system was constructed.

5 -5- The Designate took note of the CCMC Evaluation Report and the Minister s Ruling and relevant OBC provisions and advised that, in his opinion, the subject exterior cladding system was not constructed in accordance with these requirements. The Town, he stated, cannot accept the building as currently constructed. At the second hearing, upon review and consideration of the report of the Agent for the Applicant entitled Exterior Wall Investigation, Super 8 Motel, 210 Westney Road, Ajax, Ontario, the Designate advised that they continue to have concerns with respect to performance of the subject wall system. They indicated that, in their view, the cladding system does not meet the CCMC/Minister s Ruling nor the requirements of the OBC. As a result, the Designate concluded that the subject system is a hybrid wall system. Specific concerns that remained include that the face-sealing on the building is not well executed, lacks proper surface drainage away from the building at the sills, is missing a Blueskin selfadhered rubberized flashing at the window openings as required by CCMC, and lacked any field review by a third party. Without the Water Penetration Barrier required by CCMC, there is no second line of defence against water infiltration. The as-constructed exterior walls have no drainage provision which would allow drying of the system. The hybrid exterior wall system on this building have an established history of poor performance. The missing water barrier flashing and missing drainage will likely result in wetting which will cause deterioration of the substrate and structural components. In summation, the Designate for the Respondent submitted that the system, as designed and installed, does not comply with the Building Code requirements nor the CCMC Evaluation Report. No evidence has been provided to support the as-constructed hybrid wall system and, as such, it cannot be accepted by the Town. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS), which has been used as the exterior cladding for a Group C occupancy building does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles and of the Ontario Building Code at the Super 8 Motel, 210 Westney Road, Ajax, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) The Applicant party has failed to provide sufficient information, studies, and test results to support compliance with the specific requirements of Articles and , which address resistance to deterioration and sealing and draining. ii) The Evaluation Report (CCMC R) submitted by the Applicant party to illustrate impermeability to water is for a DuROCK exterior insulation and finish system, which is not the same as the as-installed face-sealed cladding system for the subject building in question.

6 Dated at Toronto this 5th day in the month of July in the year 2004 for application number Tony Chow, Chair Robert De Berardis Gary Burtch