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 , Clause (1)(b), Sentence (1) 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 Tiffany Dittmann, owner, for the resolution of a dispute with Brian Horsman, Chief Building Official, City of North Bay, to determine whether the measures offered to compensate for a reduced headroom clearance of approximately 1,829 to 1,838 mm beneath existing beams, ducts and light fixtures in the as-constructed day care centre located in the basement of a single detached dwelling will provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles and and Clause (1)(b) when considering Sentence (1) and Article of the Ontario Building Code at the Tiffany Dittman - Day Care Centre, 1404 O Brien Street, North Bay, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Tiffany Dittman, Owner North Bay, Ontario Brian Horsman Chief Building Official City of North Bay Len King, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse Gary Burtch Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING November 7, 2002 DATE OF RULING November 7, 2002 APPEARANCES William Bryant Bry-Co Engineering Ltd. North Bay, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Brian Horsman Chief Building Official City of North Bay The Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant Tiffany Dittmann, owner, has received an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies at the Tiffany Dittman - Day Care Centre, 1404 O Brien Street, North Bay, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has undertaken renovations to the basement of an existing Class C residential dwelling. The renovation constitutes conversion of the basement space into a day care centre having an A2 major occupancy classification. The structure is comprised of combustible construction and has a building area of m 2. It is described as a raised bungalow having a building height of 1 storey. The construction in dispute involves the ceiling height of the renovated basement space. The headroom provided under the bulkheads and light fixtures measures approximately 1,829 mm to 1,838 mm. To compensate for the deficiency in headroom clearance at these locations, the Applicant is proposing to delineate a path of travel to the exits whereby a headroom clearance of close to 2,100 mm can be achieved. Light fixtures would be positioned such that they would not interfere with this exit aisle and bulkheads would be notched at appropriate locations so that a passageway would be created. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the proposed compensating measures offered in lieu of providing the required minimum headroom clearance for the as-constructed day care centre will provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles and , Clause (1)(b) and (3), when considering Sentence (1) and Article of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). When evaluating this existing building under Part 11 of the OBC, in particular considering Sentence (1), the design and construction of a new building system or the extension of an existing building system requires compliance with all other Parts of the Code. For the subject building, the construction of new bulkheads and fire separations, which were required to permit the change in occupancy for the basement area, is considered to be a new building system, required to comply with the requirements of Part 3. With certain exceptions, not applicable here, Article refers to Article in determining the minimum requirements for headroom clearance in every access to exit. In this respect, Article mandates a headroom clearance of not less than 2,100 mm in every exit. Sentence (2) and (3) of this Article permit a reduction in this clearance in certain locations. The headroom clearance for stairways, measured vertically above any landing or the nosing of any stair tread, can be not less than 2,050 and, additionally, the headroom clearance for doorways is required to be not less than 2,030 mm. Furthermore, the Article requires that no door closer or other device shall reduce the clearance of a doorway to less than 1,980 mm. In addition to the headroom clearance requirements outlined in Article , Clause (1)(b) states that the height of every room shall be sufficient that the ceiling or ceiling fixtures shall not obstruct movement or activities below. As well, Sentence (3) mandates a ceiling height over the

3 -3- entire room providing sleeping accommodations in a child care facility of not less than 2,300 mm. Notwithstanding the above headroom clearance requirements, when considering that this is an existing building governed by the parameters of Part 11 of the OBC, Article would allow the use of compliance alternatives where it is determined that compliance with other parts of the Code may be impractical because of construction difficulties or detrimental to the preservation of a heritage building. In this regard, compliance alternative A40 would permit a headroom clearance of not less than 1,980 mm to be substituted for the exit headroom requirements of Article Similarly, compliance alterative A64 would permit the headroom in the child care sleeping area to be reduced to not less than 2,100 mm. In the subject building the entire floor area forms part of the access to exit, however, as noted above, the headroom clearance at certain locations throughout the floor area is as low as 1,829 mm beneath bulkheads, etc. To compensate for this reduction in the minimum clearance, the Applicant is proposing to delineate an exiting aisle where approximately 2,100 mm of headroom can be provided. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Headroom Clearance (1) Except within the floor area of a storage garage, the minimum headroom clearance in every access to exit shall conform to the requirements of Article for exits. (See also Sentence (5).) Headroom Clearance (1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2) to (4), every exit shall have a headroom clearance of not less than mm (6 ft 11 in). (2) The headroom clearance for stairways measured vertically above any landing or the nosing of any stair tread shall be not less than mm (6 ft 9 in). (3) The headroom clearance for doorways shall be not less than mm (6 ft 8 in). (4) No door closer or other device shall be installed so as to reduce the headroom clearance of a doorway to less than mm (6 ft 6 in) Room and Space Height (1) The height of every room and space shall be sufficient that (a) adequate light and air are provided for the intended occupancy, and (b) no obstruction to movement or activities below is caused by the ceiling or ceiling fixtures Sleeping Areas in Group B and Child Care Facilities (3) A child care facility shall provide sleeping accommodation having not less than 0.93 m 2 (10 ft 2 ) of floor surface area for each child with not less than mm (7 ft 7 in) ceiling height over the entire room area Compliance Alternatives

4 -4- (1) A compliance alternative shown in Tables A., B., C., D/E. or F. may be substituted for a requirement contained in Part 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 where the chief building official is satisfied that compliance with the requirement is impracticable because, (a) of structural or construction difficulties, or (b) it is detrimental to the preservation of a heritage building. 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant provided the Commission with some background to the subject development. He advised that the building is essentially a raised bungalow where the main floor is used as the personal residence of the day care operator who has converted the basement space into a licensed day care centre. There is a grade level walk out from the day care centre which is independent from the entrance to the residential unit. In obtaining municipal approval for the conversion of the basement space to an assembly occupancy, a zoning by-law amendment had been approved and a number of improvements had been undertaken to ensure that the structure complied with the Building Code. These improvements included construction to allow additional day light into the area and to provide fire separations between the two occupancies. He advised the BCC that no modifications had been made to the existing structural system. The Agent explained that the architect which was originally retained by the Applicant had undertaken to ensure that the Code requirements would be satisfied. The Agent explained that he had since retained to review the possibility of converting the upper level for use as part of the day care centre as well. He advised that he is a structural engineer and was commissioned to review the loading capabilities of the structure in this regard. As part of his involvement he has also been pursuing the final approvals for the original conversion. The Agent noted that the issue arose when, upon final inspection, the building officials noted that the ceiling height appeared to be deficient. It was then discovered that, partly due to the provision of the required fire separation, the basement headroom clearance did not comply with the Code requirements. The Agent advised that the headroom clearance over most of the floor area may meet the minimum requirement established by compliance alternative A40, however, where the existing beams and ductwork had been boxed in and with the provision of fire rated drywall, the clearance has been reduced. In an attempt to satisfy the concerns of the municipality the Agent proposed several options which could be undertaken to address the deficiency. The first two options proposed, namely raising the upper portion of the building or lowering the floor in areas beneath the bulkheads were not preferred primarily because of construction difficulties and the associated cost involved as well as the creation of hazardous grade changes in areas occupied by small children. The third option included the proposal to create an exit route passageway of an appropriate width, where the maximum headroom could be provided. The Agent also suggested that a two inch diameter pipe handrail could border the path of travel, separating floor areas with less than the required ceiling height from the exiting route. Because of the structural implications, however, additional support columns would be needed which may impact the layout and operation of the facility. The Agent submitted that, while this third option is a possibility, the fourth option which would essentially permit the headroom clearance deficiency, would be preferred. He argued that the day care facility is intended for infants and toddlers for whom headroom is not an issue. Moreover, the staff at the facility are all generally less than 6 feet in height. He further stated that parents and guardians have only limited access to the floor area where headroom clearance is not an issue. In summation, the Agent submitted that the subject day care centre is currently occupied and operating

5 -5- well. This is an existing situation, and while he acknowledged that certain deficiencies existed, he was looking for the most reasonable way to come to a solution to this problem. 6. Respondent s Position The Respondent submitted that, as CBO, he is responsible for issuing permits for structures which will comply with the requirements of the Building Code. He is not in a position to recommend to applicants how compliance can be achieved, he will simply make a determination on whether compliance has been achieved. In this regard, the subject renovation and change in occupancy were reviewed under Part 3 of the OBC. He stated that the application was not submitted under Part 11 and therefore the compliance alternatives were not considered. In evaluating the performance of the building (which is reduced as a result of the change in occupancy) and the hazard index (which is increased), he stated that the construction must comply with the requirements set out in Part 3. Individuals are not compelled to use Part 11, he submitted. At the time of permit application a determination is made whether to use Part 3 or 11 and, in this case he argued, the Applicant submitted a Part 3 application. He further suggested that, even if Part 11 were considered, in his opinion the test which would allow him to consider compliance alternatives was not met. The Respondent advised that, upon final inspection problems associated with the headroom clearance were noted. He noted that, despite the Applicant s attempt to overcome the headroom deficiency by providing an exit route, the entire floor area is considered to be part of the access to exit, and he could not accept the proposal. Furthermore, he admitted that neither he nor the Applicant had considered the headroom requirements for the sleeping area in a child care facility. In summation, the Respondent advised that the application had been reviewed for compliance with Part 3 of the Code. In this regard, the minimum headroom clearance has not been achieved throughout the floor area. There are places where it comes close he noted, but because of existing beams, ducts, light fixtures, etc. the requirements cannot been satisfied. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the measures offered to compensate for a reduced headroom clearance of approximately 1,829 to 1,838 mm beneath existing beams, ducts and light fixtures in the as-constructed day care centre located in the basement of a single detached dwelling will not provide sufficiency of compliance with Articles and and Clause (1)(b) or Sentence (1) and Article of the Ontario Building Code at the Tiffany Dittman - Day Care Centre, 1404 O Brien Street, North Bay, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) The BCC acknowledges the Applicant s attempt to provide an exit route corridor as an alternative measure to meeting the headroom requirements of the Code. However, in this instance, the entire floor area is considered to be part of the access to exit and the proposed exit route does not achieve sufficiency of compliance with the OBC. ii) Part 3 of the Code requires a minimum headroom clearance of not less than 2,100 mm in all

6 -6- exits and access to exits. However, given that this is an existing building falling under Part 11 of the Code, compliance alternative A40, would allow a reduction in headroom clearance to a minimum of 1,980 mm. Despite this permitted reduction to the headroom clearance requirement, the existing clearance in portions of the floor area may be as low as 1,829 mm. This is significantly less than that allowed by Code. iii) Furthermore, Part 3 of the Code mandates a minimum ceiling height of 2,300 mm over the entire space housing the sleeping area. Again, when considering that this is an existing structure, greater than five years in age, Part 11 of the Code is applicable. In this regard, compliance alternative A64 would permit a reduced ceiling height of not less than 2,100 mm for the sleeping area. However, as noted above, in some areas headroom clearance of as little as 1,828 mm is being provided.

7 -7- Dated at Toronto this 7th day in the month of November in the year 2002 for application number Len King, Vice-Chair Fred Barkhouse Gary Burtch